I'm a practicing physician specializing in internal medicine, that is, the prevention and treatment of disease in adults. Over the last few years, I have moved away from teaching and now spend most of my time taking care of patients and raising a family. Since 2007, I've authored the White Coat Underground blog, writing about the intersection of science, medicine, and culture. I've covered issues from medical ethics, to quackery, to gun control as it relates to public health. My opinions are my own, not those of my partners or my practice (and probably not my wife and child either). I do not give personal medical advice to strangers on the internet, so don't bother to ask. I make a living by practicing medicine. I receive some compensation for my writing. I have no economic relationships with any drug or device manufacturers. Follow me on twitter @palmd for briefer, snarkier takes on medicine and politics and at Medium for the human side of medicine. I can be contacted at "whitecoatunderground" [at] [gmail] dotcom.

Discredited Autism Researcher Chills Future Research

Can a line of medical research become so tainted as to be off-limits to future scientists? Science writer Emily Willingham asked this question recently in connection with autism and abdominal disorders.

This putative fraud involved studying a small number of autistic children and allegedly altering the collected data to support his idea that the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine (MMR) somehow caused autism. He pushed his ideas (ideas based on junk, falsified science) widely and rates of MMR vaccination dropped. Measles and mumps, having nearly been eradicated, are now popping up in the UK and the US in numbers we haven’t seen in decades.

But what if, Emily asks, there is an important connection between autism and bowel problems? Not one where vaccines cause autism, but a link between the anxiety suffered by autistic people and abdominal pain, something seen in neuro-typicals with anxiety?

Has this question become difficult to study because of the baggage piled one by Wakefield’s actions, actions that have injured the public health of the US and the UK?

Emily points to a piece in the journal Pediatrics that says “yes”, Wakefield’s abominable actions have put a chill on a potentially important line of research.

Research that comes with a ton of ethical baggage, such as eugenics and experiments done by Nazis on prisoners raise important questions. In this case it’s not the ethical baggage but the outrageous actions by a single person, actions that have hurt real people.

It certainly is a quandary, but with proper, ethical supervision, we should be able to go on with this research.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

There is a new development. Mr. Wakefield has written a threatening letter to Emily Willingham and sent a copy of that letter to Forbes. Wakefield has resorted to one of his famous tactics of using the courts to silence a science blogger. (He has sued Brian Deer four times for defamation and is presently appealing a Texas case where the judge tossed out his claim). To make matters worse, and to confirm that Wakefield’s threatened defamation lawsuit is a lame attempt to silence science bloggers and journalists, that letter was published at 1 AM today on the crank anti-vaccine website Age of Autism.

Emily Willingham has earned the respect of the science community and the autism community. It is up to Forbes now, to protect their science bloggers from the likes of the disgraced and discredited former medical doctor Andrew Wakefield.

Andrew Wakefield caused a lot of damage. Direct damage to children and all of us, by giving false credence to anti-vaccine claims, with a cost in life and suffering; and as Dr. Willingham documented, less direct damage by undermining important scientific avenues. His actions had a cost in suffering and even lives. Thank you for speaking up and highlighting this important issue.

IANAL, but I noted that an esteemed Professor of Law wrote regarding Wakefield’s bluster: “True reporting on a public figure is not defamation.”

I can’t imagine that Dr. Willingham will be intimidated by an empty threat from a discredited former researcher who was previously identified by Time Magazine as a Great Science Fraud, since Wakefield cannot expect to prevail–but I doubt that prevailing in the threatened law suit is his goal.

I too, doubt that Andrew Wakefield will follow through on his threat. He released that letter to Age of Autism and is lapping up the praise of the “true believers”, who are massaging his ego. In addition, he can always depend on his fans to donate more money for his so-called “defense fund”. Yes, in that echo chamber, harassing go-no- where lawsuits that Wakefield commences, are just another opportunity to get donations.

I’ve read the article that Dr. Willingham referenced; it is a meta analysis of recent studies of gastrointestinal issues in children diagnosed with ASDs. The authors distinctly mention the paucity of good studies and they came to the same conclusions as Dr. Willingham, about Wakefield’s fraudulent research which has hampered the study of these GI issues in children with special needs. The authors also made the observation that children who have sensory issues, children who have issues with different textures will self-select the types of food they will eat…thus causing constipation or diarrhea.

As an advocate for all developmentally disabled children and adults, for the past 37 years, and as a taxpayer, I am disgusted that so much money and so many resources have been devoted to proving that vaccines, the ingredients in vaccines, the timing and spacing of vaccines…have never been implicated in the onset of ASDS…or any other disorder:

This is such utter bull. Dr. Wakefield never engaged in fraud. There was nothing fraudulent about that Lancet paper. Even the GMC did not accuse him of falsifying data. That paper was coauthored with a dozen others, one of whom, John Walker-Smith, is a world renowned pediatric gastroenterologist whose medical license was restored by an English court which ruled that the GMC’s rulings were deeply flawed. The coauthors have stuck by everything in that paper except for the interpretation of a possible link between the MMR and the children’s health and neurological issues. The paper actually stated that no such link was proven. It simply called for further study and accurately stated that the parents of 8 out of 12 children reported a temporal link. The primary finding of the paper was inflammation in the intestines. This should have inspired further research. It was not Dr. Wakefield who discouraged that research. His mistreatment by the GMC discouraged further research. He has been not only unjustly prosecuted but persecuted, and trashed by the media who lack conscience, independence, and backbone. To blame Wakefield for the backlash and crackdown on anyone who dares question the sanctity of vaccines is beyond ludicrous. He simply responded to the needs of these patients and the concerns raised by their parents – not only the Lancet 12 but hundreds more who also sought treatment at the Royal Free Hospital. It is positively Orwellian to turn this around to be Wakefield preventing research – newspeak, doublethink – warping reality for the purpose of protecting pharma/govt interests.

Walker-Smith’s acquittal leaves Andrew Wakefield’s decision standing – the criticism in it is not about the findings against Andrew Wakefield. First, it does not address many of the violations of which Andrew Wakefield was found guilty (e.g. hiding conflicts of interests). Second, for some of the claims, Walker-Smith’s acquittal is based on the fact that Wakefield misled him. Third, the acquittal is based on accepting Walker-Smith’s claim as to his intent – whether ti was medical practice or research. The decision made this finding: “Dr. Wakefield’s purpose was undoubtedly research; Professor Walker-Smith’s may have lain anywhere on the spectrum.” http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

One of the ironies, Dorit, is that Walker-Smith had written into his autobiography that the project was research. He and the other clinicians issued a formal statement through the Lancet saying it was IRB-approved research. Then, when the GMC proved that they didn’t have legitimate IRB approval, they changed their story and claimed that everything was clinically indicated.

I actually did an analysis of Walker-Smith’s autobiography claim, after he reprinted his autobiography with the story changed:

http://briandeer.com/solved/john-walker-smith.htm

Another of the ironies is that Wakefield’s last academic employer, University College London, expressly asked him to replicate his research with a larger number of subjects, controls, blind virology and so forth, and even offered to help him fund it.

He refused to do it. So they fired him.

So, in case the anti-vaxxers missed that: Wakefield REFUSED to perform the follow-on research that may or may not have validated his “hypothesis”. So, he was FIRED.

“That paper was coauthored with a dozen others, one of whom, John Walker-Smith, is a world renowned pediatric gastroenterologist whose medical license was restored by an English court which ruled that the GMC’s rulings were deeply flawed”

What did the court say about Mr. Wakefield’s theory? About his statements about the MMR vaccine?

” Dr. Wakefield’s statement and subsequent publicity had a predictable adverse effect upon the take up of MMR vaccine of great concern to those responsible for public health. There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports his hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.”

Mr. Wakefield diverted funds given to him for his legal aid board research. The funds were left over and instead of returning said funds, he applied them to a different project. As I recall, his own attorney in the GMC hearing claimed that those charges amounted to an accusation of fraud. Those charges were found proved.

The GMC hearings were fairly recent (2009). And GI/autism research has actually increased since then. The period from 1997 (the Lancet article) to 2009 was a period when much more work could have gone on had Mr. Wakefield not made the claims about GI/autism and MMR.

” It simply called for further study and accurately stated that the parents of 8 out of 12 children reported a temporal link.”

As Mr. Deer has pointed out, Mr. Wakefield started with reporting on the claims of more parents, but those with longer time-to onset were not reported in the Lancet article. That’s not “ accurate”.

” That paper was coauthored with a dozen others, one of whom, John Walker-Smith, is a world renowned pediatric gastroenterologist whose medical license was restored by an English court which ruled that the GMC’s rulings were deeply flawed”

That Court also made it clear that there is no good evidence to support Mr. Wakefield’s hypothesis. They also did not touch on Mr. Wakefield’s case. given that many of the charges had nothing to do with Prof. Walker-Smith, one can’t even stretch the Professor’s appeal as speaking to Mr. Wakefield’s case.

Four charges of dishonesty in his research were found proven – against a criminal standard of sureness – including the finding that he had intentionally misled readers about the patient population in the study. That is a finding of research fraud.

Except when he reported 9 of the 12 subjects of the retracted 1998 lancet paper developed regressive autism, when in fact 3 of those were not have autistism diagnosed at all and only one of the nnie was diagnosed as exhibiting regressive autism.

And where he reported all 12 subjects were ‘previously normal’ when in fact 5 had documented pre-existing developmental concerns.

And that bit where he reported some children as exhibiting the first onset of symptoms within days of vaccination, when their medical records instead document onset occurring months afterward.

And of course where he altered subjects’ medical records, changing colonic histopathology findings of normal (“no or minimal fluctuations of inflammatory cell populations”) to report a fidning of “non-specific colitis” instead.

And that part where he reported eight parents of children as blaming the MMR vaccine for their chidlrens’ developmental issues when in fact 11 parents made this claim: he excluded 3 parents claims because they gave onset times of 3 months or greater following vaccination, which would have prevented him from creating the false impression of a close (on the order of 14 days) temporal association.

As the person who cracked open the Wakefield case series and revealed the true status, histories and diagnoses of the 12 subjects therein, I’ve long had a big interest this subject.

Some of the remarkable findings from behind the veil of what was published by Wakefield et al (retracted) in 1998 are that, as a group, the children’s most characteristic shared feature (apart from their parents involvement with compensation claims) was that almost all had severe constipation. And yet, because the paper’s purpose was to attack MMR, this sign was completely ignored. The word “constipation” never even appeared.

Later, the BMJ and I were able to obtain two sets of pathology reports on the children’s bowels: first from the hospital staff pathology team, and second from a subsequent “research review”. These showed mild inflammatory changes consistent with constipation, but no shared inflammatory bowel disease. Indeed, we put (surprisingly tatty, low-grade) pathology scoring sheets our for multiple expert reviews, and the consistent answer we got was that the pathology was the kind of thing you might find in almost anybody’s gut, particularly if they were constipated. There was nothing distinctive, and certainly nothing that suggested any unique process. Reviewers said that Wakefield was essentially reporting background noise – normality – as pathology so as to create a sham entity to submit in litigation as evidence of vaccine damage.

So, from a gatroenterological viewpoint, the paper hid the clinicians’ (not Wakefield’s, because he found nothing) findings: that constipation was often overlooked. This was in 1998, and nowadays there are a lot of papers around that say this. Indeed, constipation in what used to be called “mental handicap” was reported in the 1930s, and probably earlier.

But because the attack was on MMR – and the Lancet would never have published a paper on constipation in autism – the findings were buried.

Anecdotally, I have heard a lot about constipation in children with developmental disorders. It’s way outside my line of work to have much of an opinion on this, but I think there’s a strong case that (aside from challenged kids’ often weird eating habits, difficulties in toilet training, and suchlike) the gut-brain connection significantly goes in the opposite direction to what is being touted around at the moment.

This would be that the autonomic nervous system -> enteric nervous system are not correctly signalling the gut so as to clear feces, causing constipation, fecal stasis, mild inflammatory changes and pain.

You, Lilady and Dorit Reiss are the most infamous pharmawhores on the planet. A few simple google searches clearly shows that you are well paid TROLLS. And you Brian Deer, lying about your backers, have the stolen lives of many vaccine injured kids directly on your conscience, IF you have a conscience at all. Researchers won’t touch the topic because of the dirty, deceptive work you have done. I can’t wait for your day in court.

But Mr Deer could not stand by his results when challenged by Eugenie Reich of Nature after the interrvention of Dr David Lewis (nor could BMJ’s editor Fiona Godlee or their advisor Prof Bjarnason), and this is how they were reported:

“But he (Bjarnason) says that the forms don’t clearly support charges that Wakefield deliberately misinterpreted the records. “The data are subjective. It’s different to say it’s deliberate falsification,” he says.

“Deer notes that he never accused Wakefield of fraud over his interpretation of pathology records…

“Fiona Godlee, the editor of the BMJ, says that the journal’s conclusion of fraud was not based on the pathology but on a number of discrepancies between the children’s records and the claims in the Lancet paper…”

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111109/full/479157a.html?s=news_rss

However, let us also go back to GMC decision which was centrally based on Deer’s allegation that that the Wakefield Lancet paper was based on protocol 172-96 and commissioned by the Legal Aid Board:

“The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162- 95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.”

And the reason why the senior author and clinician in the paper was exonerated was because in the English High Court before Mr Just Mitting the GMC’s counsel was unable to indicate what evidence it was that had enabled the panel to reject this defence, and nor could the judge find any. There was zero evidence of the claim of the GMC and Deer that it was a study based on the LAB protocol 172-96 rather than an early report as stated.

At the GMC hearing I shouted out something about this (and Deer wrote an abusive comment about the incident on Orac’s blog) but the matter has been tested, and Deer’s allegation has failed.

Whether or not Deer ever has to answer for all this before a Texas court the documentary record has failed to support him about many things and yet his word is still being held up as reliable.

Walker-Smith was acquitted because the judge concluded his intent in performing treatments may have been medical. And it was nowhere near as clear cut as you present – again, this is what the judge said: “The decision made this finding: “Dr. Wakefield’s purpose was undoubtedly research; Professor Walker-Smith’s may have lain anywhere on the spectrum.” http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

In terms of ethical approval the court, again, found that Wakefield misled his collaborators.

That decision is not an acquittal of Andrew Wakefield. In any way.

The journal Nature reported that some people disagree with Mr.Deer – the article did not conclude either way, just pointed out there is a claim that this is not fraud. Nothing more, nothing less. Saying Mr. Deer could not stand by his allegation is not a correct description of the article.

In short, nothing in what you provided actually disprove what Mr. Deer documented. And he documented his discoveries extensively. That’s why his claims stand.

Andrew Wakefield, in contrast, had been shown to make multiple incorrect, misleading statements. Statements that scared people unjustifiably from protecting children against dangerous diseases. With a cost in suffering and deaths.

“But Mr Deer could not stand by his results when challenged by Eugenie Reich of Nature after the interrvention of Dr David Lewis (nor could BMJ’s editor Fiona Godlee or their advisor Prof Bjarnason), and this is how they were reported:”

You might want to mention the caption for the Picture of Andrew Wakefield reads:

Dorit: As a lawyer, you’d probably be interested in the Walker-Smith story. Basically, what happened was that the UK’s GMC had for years been using a formula where they never really gave much of their reasoning.

The rule was that, for each charge, they would just give a sentence or two. But then there was a case involving a paediatrician, where the GMC found him guilty on a charge, despite witness evidence to the contrary. From the GMC panel’s findings in that case, it was not clear on what basis they had come to their decision on that point.

Anyhow, this went all the way to the Court of Appeal (which in the UK is very big deal) and one Lord Justice Leveson overturned the decision. In the UK, there has been a general tightening of natural justice findings, and this was one of them. Leveson said that the doctor was entitled not only to be told the finding, but to be told the reasoning that lay behind it. Why did they come to that decision?

Leveson handed down his judgment (which binds all the lower courts) after the findings of fact were given against Walker-Smith in 2010, but before the sentencing. Again, in his case, the one-sentence reasoning was plainly inadequate. The panel needed to set out why they said he was doing research, particularly when they made no finding of dishonesty against him.

I was told long before Walker-Smith’s appeal that he was quite likely to prevail, because all the lawyers had obviously read Leveson’s judgment. The only solution would have been for the panel to take back the findings, re-sit for a few weeks, and set out their reasoning.

But Walker-Smith was old, peripheral to the main issue – Wakefield – and having made him sit through 193 days already, and he had undertaken not to practise medicine, it would have been cruel beyond belief (and very expensive). So the GMC told the administrative judge who heard the case that they would not go again.

The judge who heard Walker-Smith’s case – a guy called Mitting – mostly did immigration and asylum cases. In those, the reasoning for denying someone entry to the UK can easily run for 20 or 30 pages, compared with the little sentences the GMC used.

All this then was about natural justice, and not really much to do with the facts of the MMR research. As you say, Walker-Smith could argue that he was mainly doing clinical work. Wakefield, however, was doing research. No question.

Even Wakefield’s own legal team recognised this when they advised his funding body that he was unlikely to prevail if he appealed, so they cut off his money. Had Wakefield appealed, you can be absolutely certain that he would today still be a struck off ex-doctor. There were four findings of dishonesty against him, including one of research fraud (dishonest description of the patient population).

But it’s an interesting area, because it shows how the rule of law is still extending procedural fairness. We should all be glad about that, and its only sad to see malignant cranks using the Walker-Smith issue as another way to trick parents who are worried about their kids.

All of this is a distraction (including whether I may be a “malignant crank” which I do not take to be a professional mode of criticism). I raised two points neither of which has been directly answered.

1) That Deer, Godlee, and Bjarnason were forced by Nature journalist Eugenie Reich to concede that there had not been improper intertpretation of the biopsies.

2) No one has produced any evidence for Deer and the GMC’s allegation that the paper was an attempt at the Legal Aid Board protocol.

An obvious red-herring is the issue of research. The issue of research did not arise because the paper was a review of clinical data obtained in the routine investigation and treatment of the patients but this did not mean the data had no research interest and Walker-Smith was a research scientist (just like Wakefield) while being a clinician at the same time. Judge Mitting didn’t find evidence for the LAB protocol hypothesis and he did not find evidence that Walker-Smith was investigating beyond clinical need. But clearly Walker-Smith did co-author the paper and if that in itself had been an issue then presumably Mitting would have found so.

You can try and distract from these basic points by trying to widen the issues but these are the one’s that Deer and Reiss can’t answer on and we should not be fooled. I deliberately linked to the GMC quote in my BMJ letter soon after the GMC delivered its findings (February 2010). Deer couldn’t answer then and he can’t answer now.

“1) That Deer, Godlee, and Bjarnason were forced by Nature journalist Eugenie Reich to concede that there had not been improper intertpretation of the biopsies.”

I take it you haven’t read the Nature news article in a while. Or you misunderstood. Take the opportunity to read again. And the BMJ articles. Mr. Deer stated that it wasn’t the pathology reports that formed the basis of his own statements of fraud and misconduct by Mr. Wakefield.

Let’s take a look at the paragraph you selectively quoted:

“Deer notes that he never accused Wakefield of fraud over his interpretation of pathology records. But he says that records read to him from the Royal Free pathology service clearly stated that the children’s gut biopsies were within normal limits, even though they were reported in the Lancet paper as having enterocolitis.”

Sentence 1: it wasn’t the pathology records that formed the basis for Mr. Deer’s statements.

Sentence 2 (which you neglected to quote): the pathology reports did not indicate the conditions reported in the Lancet paper.

So, yes, he’s stating that there were improper interpretations of the biopsies.

Deer had obviously made accusations about Wakefield manipulating the biopsy findings although he hadn’t previously seen the records. We note that when the records appeared they didn’t support this and Prof Bjarnason and even Dr Godlee retreated. In Deer’s case you have possibly located a semantic defence which even Deer may not have intended. It should be noted that both histopathologists in the paper rebutted Deer’s claims about this matter. At the hearing Prof Murch gave an historical perspective on the issue which has not been disputed (but which Deer did not report):-

Counsel Q Was there any meeting about the histology section?

Murch A Yes, I recall a meeting. I suspect that I may not be alone with that, but I do have a very good recollection of the meeting. I think the reason was initially that Dr Davies had seen the draft of the paper and just wondered whether the description of the histology perhaps oversold it. In other words, was the description in the paper something that was rather more florid than the lesion she remembered and thus my recollection is that she arranged a lunchtime meeting – I believe it was Friday, that is possibly irrelevant – in the manner of our normal histology meeting in the same place, in the histology seminar room, where the various pathologists who had seen the tissues attended at the same time and so this would be from the paper Dr Anthony —

Q I want to run through a list of names and then if I miss out anyone then of course add them in. Let us start off with Dr Davies; was she present at that meeting?

A She was indeed.

Q Professor Walker-Smith?

A Yes.

Q Dr Thomson?

A Yes.

Q Obviously yourself.

A Yes.

Q Dr Andrew Anthony?

A Yes.

Q Dr Dhillon?

A Yes.

Q Dr Heuschkel?

A I believe that Dr Heuschkel was present, yes. I am less certain about that, but that is my recollection from that meeting.

Q Dr Casson?

A I believe so, yes.

Q Dr Malik?

A I also believe so, yes.

Q Dr Wakefield?

A Yes.

Q Are there any others you remember being present at that meeting?

A I think Dr Alan Phillips may have been there as well but I cannot recall with certainty.

Q Were the original histology slides that had gone to Dr Davies’ lab looked at at that meeting?

A They were.

Q What was the outcome of that meeting about the description of the histology?

A That all the pathologists present when the slides were reviewed case by case agreed that the wording in the paper – we had a table of the histological findings, which I believe will be as seen in the paper here – they all agreed that the wording was reasonable. So I think that Dr Davies was then satisfied that the paper could go forward for publication without change in the histological description.”

Quite right. Ingvaar Bjarnasson calls these people “criminals”. Not only do I state that the interpretations were false, I wrote a somewhat long report in BMJ setting out exactly how it was done.

http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6823

The thing about responsible journalism is that you have to go on the evidence. When I wrote the report on Wakefield’s fraud (which I’m told was the most read and reported article in the BMJ’s history, but I’ve no way of checking) we did not have the raw data from the so-called “research review” of GI pathology. So, responsibly, we did not call the fraud on pathology, but merely reported what was claimed. We called the fraud on the covert study methods, clinical histories and diagnoses. That was why the editors of BMJ dubbed the Wakefield paper “an elaborate fraud”.

Wakefield has since pursued the argument that the paper was about bowel pathology, the bowel pathology wasn’t fraudulent, therefore the BMJ was lying. However, the paper was only partly about bowel pathology. Most of it was about making a case that MMR “apparently” caused autism.

When Wakefield took part in a deposition of me a year or two ago, he fled the room as I quietly went through the paper saying “that’s fraud… that’s fraud… that’s fraud”. Close observers note that we have taken nothing back, apologised for nothing, corrected nothing, and, while nobody welcomes litigation, we would have been content to see Wakefield in the High Court in London, where, in the end, we would have bankrupted him and potentially anyone within the jurisdiction who funded him. That’s why he brought a vexatious action in Texas: because our costs would be colossal, we would find it hard to manage witness attendance or depose the people we wish to interview, and could not recover our costs from him. And, in the end, we would only ever be telling a story that we have already told.

Anyhow, back to GI pathology: we subsequently obtained the raw data, and the position changed, as can be seen in my BMJ report (link above) “Pathology reports solve ‘new bowel disease’ riddle”.

The wheedling malignant cranks who seek to suggest that I somehow withdrew anything, or didn’t stand by my findings, are, as usual trying to trick parents concerned about their children.

When we published that report, all the pathologist whose findings were used by Wakefield to claim a new bowel disease, said that, at the time, on the information he had, ‘colitis’ was ‘plausible’. In fact, on his own results, reviewed by some of the world’s most respected GI pathologists, it was not. Nevertheless, if he had not at least claimed plausibility, then he would be up for fraud at the GMC himself. But, even he, in that situation, made no claim to have found colitis.

Whatever, claims Mr Deer made in BMJ it was not how he, Prof Bjarnason and Dr Godlee responded when pressed by the Nature journalist. Moreover, a firm rebuttal came subsequently from Dr Dhillon the senior histopathologist on the paper.

This is fascinating – and explains a lot. Your point about intent is reflected in he paragraph above from Mitting’s decision, distinguishing between Walker-Smith and Wakefield’s intent. Thank you for explaining this.

I agree that the giving reasons requirement – and procedural fairness – is very important, and although it makes this decision something anti-vaccine activists can misuse, it was the right thing to require this kind of explanation, I think. At the end of the day, it’s the same point as with compensating vaccine injuries: it can be misused by the anti-vaccine movement, but is important, because it’s the right thing to do.

“The Panel has already found proved that Dr Wakefield’s Honorary Consultant appointment was subject to a stipulation that he would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients. On five occasions (child 2, 4, 5, 12 and 7) he ordered investigations on children, when he had no paediatric qualifications, and in contravention of the limitations on his appointment. The Panel considered this alone constituted a breach of trust of patients and employers alike. ”

Mr. Wakefield, a man with no clinical responsibilities, ordered investigations on disabled children. Nothing to do with the project.

The next charge noted was that Mr. Wakefield charged the legal aid board for costs which were instead paid for by the National Health Service.

“ In February 1996 Dr Wakefield agreed to act as an expert in respect of MMR litigation. In relation to the Legal Aid Board (LAB), the Panel found that Dr Wakefield accepted monies totalling £50,000 procured through Mr Barr, the Claimants’ solicitor to pursue research. A costing proposal had been submitted by Mr Barr to the LAB containing detailed information provided by Dr Wakefield, and Dr Wakefield ought to have realised that Mr Barr would submit it to the LAB.

The costing proposal set out costs in respect of the investigation of five children. It covered each child’s four-night stay in hospital with colonoscopy, MRI and evoked potential studies. Dr Wakefield admitted that the funding subsequently provided by the Legal Aid Board had not been needed for these items because these costs were borne by the National Health Service as the patients were being admitted as NHS patients”

The next charge discusses how Mr. Wakefield, having 25,000 pounds left over, did not return that money to the LAB but instead diverted it to other projects.

Only then do they get to the project 172-96. You’ve got that incorrect too, but let’s just stick to the above for the moment. Not only are all these serious charges proved, they have nothing to do with John Walker-Smith, so his appeal can not speak at all to the validity of those charges.

All your rhetoric doesn’t work on those of us who have actually read the documents.

“We note that when the records appeared they didn’t support this and Prof Bjarnason and even Dr Godlee retreated. ”

Really? Let’s go over the history. The reports were available for the GMC hearing but apparently Mr. Wakefield and his team didn’t think much of them as a defense then. Lewis obtained the reports from Mr. Wakefield post GMC hearing. He sent them to the BMJ asking them to publish them with his letter. Instead the BMJ published the reports with their own article “ Pathology reports solve “new bowel disease” riddle”

http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6823

It isn’t even a stretch to call that “backing down”. That’s no retreat.

Brian Deer I have to ask, did it ever occur to you that it might have been a good idea, indeed even ethically responsible, to announce the fact that it was in fact you that submitted the initial complaint about Wakefield to the GMC?

You submitted the complaint, and then proceeded to cover the story representing yourself as an objective, dispassionate journalist. None of those three words describe you sir. You propelled your own career while covering a story you helped to initiate, based on a series of lies and misrepresentations that you continue to pile on even today.

And while I am at it, how do you explain your unprecedented access to highly sensitive medical records? You have made several and various claims about this, and within these comments pages you claim that you worked with BMJ to obtain the records. Now why would it be ethical for either you OR another professional journal to have access to children’s medical records? And how do you explain the complaints from some of the parents of the children who were studied in Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper, who said that you misrepresented your identity when interviewing them?

You are very lucky for now, in that the medical establishment on both sides of the Pond have a vested interest in propping up your fantasies as fact, and supporting your conclusions. But history and truth both have a way of flushing out the rats, and you sir will be swimming soon enough.

One has to ask: what point are you trying to make here? If Brian Deer had announced that he had initally brought Wakefield’s unprofessional conduct to the attention of the GMC, would Wakefield be any less guilty of committing those offenses? Would the retracted 1998 Lancet paper somehow become something other than an instance of scientific fraud?

Simple answer is yes. The findings of the GMC were flawed and they were based on Deer’s allegations, reporting and conflicts (which were shared by the GMC). There are perfectly good reasons why certain basic journalistic ethics ought to be observed and the question why they were not is totally germane. To begin with was the allegation about the paper being the LAB project which was Deer’s first complaint (undisclosed), it was supported by the GMC prosecutors and panel but without citing any material evidence. The charge was against all three doctors and in 2012 it was dismissed by Mr Justice Mitting in the High Court. It should never have happened and the whole process was tainted and untrustworthy. Worth mentioning that the head of panels at the GMC, Dr Harvey Marcovitch, was also the alleged external peer reviewer of Deer’s 2011 BMJ articles against Wakefield although a BMJ editor as well. All roads lead to Rome, as it were.

Nonsense, John. it’s been explained to you multiple times now–including by a qualified attorney–that the John Walker Smith ruling does nothing to inalidate the GMC findings against Wakefield. In his opinion re: Walker-Smith’s appeat Justice Mitting dismissed absolutely no GMC findings against him and in fact concurred with the GMC’s ruling, stating that there is no doubt Andrew Wakefield’s intent was to conduct research.

If you mean Dorit Reiss, she isn’t a qualified attorney (as she was pleased to confirm to me recently I think on this very blog): “I wrote an academic paper on it; as a non-lawyer, I am not going to – or able – to bring a lawsuit…Mr. Stone, I never presented myself as a lawyer. I’m an academic”. The allegation that the Lancet “early report” was actually was commissioned by the Legal Aid Board and was project 172-96 is simply a proposition that cannot stand and for which there is no evidence – it was made up Deer and rejected by a High Court judge. It simply was not true. Let us be clear that Deer made this allegation against all three doctors in his first complaint, not just Wakefield. The fact that John Walker-Smith had to endure eight years of misery because of this is also no feather in Deer’s cap. It was not true for John Walker-Smith – it was just not true at all. For people to go on maintaining this falsehood by twisting the words of a High Court judge do themselves no good at all.

If you mean Dorit Reiss, she isn’t a qualified attorney (as she was pleased to confirm to me recently I think on this very blog): “I wrote an academic paper on it; as a non-lawyer, I am not going to – or able – to bring a lawsuit…Mr. Stone, I never presented myself as a lawyer. I’m an academic”. The allegation that the Lancet “early report” was actually commissioned by the Legal Aid Board and was project 172-96 is simply a proposition that cannot stand and for which there is no evidence – it was made up by Deer and rejected by a High Court judge. It simply was not true. Let us be clear that Deer made this allegation against all three doctors in his first complaint, not just Wakefield. The fact that John Walker-Smith had to endure eight years of misery because of this is also no feather in Deer’s cap. It was not true for John Walker-Smith – it was just not true at all. Those people who go on maintaining this falsehood by twisting the words of a High Court judge do themselves no good at all. The judge suggested that there might be some different professional motive on the part of Wakefield but that is not enough to refloat the ridiculous 172-96 allegation.

As explained above in detail, and as highlighted multiple times, Judge Mitting’s ruling does nothing to exonerate Andrew Wakefield from the charges against him. Charges that include hiding conflicts of interests, inappropriately ordering invasive tests on children for research purposes, misrepresenting an ethics committee approval. Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of multiple serious ethics violation. Reading Judge Mitting’s decision shows that that verdict is left untouched.

Not a convincing job Prof Reiss. What you are ducking is that the central 172-96 allegation (made originally by Mr Deer) was a fabrication without a scrap of documentary evidence -if you really want to brandish it around as still valid please say so. I note, btw, many of the other findings against Wakefield hinge on this central one, not to mention the highly prejudicial nature of the hearing that could make such grotesque errors.

It remains a fact that the paper was a review of data obtained in the first place for clinical reasons but published for scientific interest. Wakefield was a researcher and Walker-Smith and Murch were clinicians, but also researchers. You have made a meal of Mitting’s line that Wakefield’s interest was research but it is a red-herring and all three together with ten other medical researchers signed the paper. As it is, back to 172-96 – are you really still defending that claim, or not really?

I apologize for ‘shouting’ I feel I need to employ caps for emphasis for a moment.

John, it simply DOES NOT MATTER whether the Lancet paper details results from study 172-96 or some other study. In the course of whatever study Wakefield was performing he committed serious acts of unprofessional conduct, and it was those acts which caused the GMC to have him struck him off (e.g., ordering investigations without requisite paediatric qualifications including colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures without the approval of his department’s ethics board and contrary to the children’s clinical interests ] when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children’s symptoms or medical history.)

Even if Wakefield had been correct, if his data had been genuine rather than fraudulent, and he had proven his thesis that a link between MMR, chronic eterocolitis and autism existed, those documented instances of unprofessional conduct would still warrant his being struck off by the GMC.

Shouting doesn’t win arguments, and what we know after Mitting is that GMC panel was simply not reliable – after 3 years they had no reasoning for their main decision – and unlike Walker-Smith, Wakefield and Murch were not funded to appeal: their cases have never been reviewed although very similar in many respects to Walker-Smith’s and in the case of Murch almost identical. As to the investigatory procedures Walker-Smith was entirely responsible for what went on in his department – all the clinical decisions went back to him and if Wakefield initiated anything independently that would have been an issue for which Walker-Smith was answerable, and Walker-Smith was cleared. As to taking blood tests that is something which does not generally need ethical approval. I note Dr Evan Harris (at the time of the BMA ethical committee) telling parliament on 15 March 2004, just as he was denouncing Wakefield and colleagues stating:

“The guidelines were published and circulated by the Department of Health in 1991, the British Paediatric Association—now the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—in 1992, the General Medical Council in 1994 and the Royal College of Physicians in 1996. The guidelines made it clear that children should not be exposed to anything more invasive or risky than a blood test unless certain conditions —likely specific clinical benefit to the child—were met”

Everything the public think they now know about Wakefield is based on a flawed and political process. The chairman of the GMC panel failed to declare before sitting that he worked for licensing authority, that he had shares in one of the MMR manufacurers, and after the hearing he exposed his further bias by calling in a BMA debate for MMR to made compulsory (all against the Nolan committee for standards in public life recommendations). I mentioned above that the head of GMC panels doubled as the allegedly independent peer reviewer of the Deer 2011 allegations in BMJ (and despite also being a BMJ editor!). This was all entirely inappropriate – apart from anything this was plainly very intimidating for the profession.

Yes it does matter that there are standards in public life, transparency, accountability, journalists ethics, independent panels, reasoned prosecutions, reasoned judgments. All of this is absent here.

I agree that shouting doesn’t win arguments, nor was I attempting to win an argument by doing so. I was offering a tongue in cheek apology for the fact that I’m now aware of how I could place emphasis on a phrase without using all caps, which is widely regarded as impolite or excessive. (do the html prompts for bolding or italicizing work in these coments?)

My point remains the same: whatever study Wakefield was performing, and even if his thesis had been proven valid, he still has been demonstratedto have committed serious breaches of professional conduct and the GMC acted appropriately by striking him off.

Bottom line: your defense of his actions is “all sound and fury, signifying nothing” (and I feel I’m being generous by not also citing the prior 6 words of that quotation).

How did Wakefield fail to receive due process? The GMC followed established procedures by convening the tribunal, heard evidence from 36 witnesses over a period of almost 150 days, Wakefield was inivted to defend himself but chose not to testify and his lawyers chose not to call any witnesses on his behalf, and finally he had the same opportunity to appeal the ruling that John Walker Smith pursued succesfully (but he again elected no to do so).

Where exactly was his right to due process infringed?

As for blood tests not being something that requiring ethical approval, recall the invasive procedures he was found to have ordered without requisite pediatric qualifications, appropriate ethical approval and contrary to the children’s clinical interests weren’t blood tests: they were instead colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures.

Oh, and with respect to what we know after Mitting? Recall that while in his opinion Justice Mitting explicitly state that while the GMC tribunal had failed to sufficiently demonstrate John Wlker-Smith’s participation was undertaken with an intent to conduct research, Mitting also stated explicitly that Wakefield’s intent was clearly to conduct research.

Here we go round the mulberry bush. “How did Wakefield fail to receive due process?” Because we know that many of the findings against him hinged on the 172-96 claim (the substance of Deer’s first hidden complaint/denunciation to the GMC) and this was not true. The issue that Wakefield was a researcher and Walker-Smith a clinician (as well btw as a researcher) has no bearing on the 1998 Lancet paper. The question that Mitting posed was whether any of the data in the paper relating to the 12 Royal Free patients was obtained as part of research rather than routine clinical enquiry even though there was no evidence for 172-96, and he found not – and Walker-Smith as senior author was as responsible for the content of the paper as Wakefield.

PS Not only was Walker-Smith as responsible for the content of the paper as Wakefield he was responsible for collaborating with Wakefield, so all this stuff about Wakefield’s interest being research is a red-herring.

a) many of the findings did not hinge on the 172-96 claim: the charges regarding undisclosed COI’s stand regardless of what study he was performing; the failure to disclose how the subjects of the study were recrutied stand regardless of what study he was performin; the charges regarding failure to obtain ethical review board approval prior to proceeding stand regardless of what study he was performing; the charges regarding subjecting the children to unnecessary and invasive procedures without appropriate pediatric qualifications which were contrary to their clinical interests stand regardless of what study he was performing

and

b) All evidence apart from wakefield’s unsupported personal assertion “That wasn’t the study I was doing” demonstrate that 172-96 is exactly what he was doing.

I’ll note also that you’re clearly confused about the meaning of due, if you think the tribunal getting something wrong–and there’s no evidence that’s what happened with respect to Wakefield, I must emphasize–would be a violation. Due process addresses procedures, not outcomes.

First of all you are trying to distract from the issue which is that Deer’s allegation was false and the GMC’s finding was false and I was commenting on Deer’s credibility. Try para 19 of Mitting’s judgment:

All the children are known to have been investigated under ethical approval 162-95 (which Deer must have known too) with the consent of their parents.

I have to say that it would not be fair (or due process) if a set of false allegations were allowed to stand even if some others were justified, however, Wakefield had strong defences on the COI allegations which the panel high-handedly ignored. In particular, if Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, had checked his files he would have discovered – if he needed too – that he and the Lancet had been in correspondance about Wakefield acting as an expert to the court since March or April 1997, it had been the subject of public correspondence immediately after the publication of the paper, which was later mischievously misrepresented by the Lancet. That Horton was supposed to have discovered that Wakefield was party to the litigation only in February 2004 was a fabrication. But the panel knew all this and found against him anyway (so it is just as outrageous as 172-96 fabrication):

However, I point out that the issue here is not about Wakefield but the credibility of his chief accuser, Brian Deer who seems to have shown no ethics at all in pursuit of Wakefield. Using innuendo and baseless assertion to resuscitate a deeply flawed prosecution should also be seen for what it is.

John, how many times will it be necesary to remind you that Justice Mitting did not address any GMC findings against Wakefield, but only ruled with respect to GMC findings against John Walker Smith?

Nothing in Mitting’s opinion re: Walker-Smith’s can be interpreted as factually establishing all the children were investigated under ethical approval 162-95. Mitting instead found that the GMC ruling offered insufficient explanation why they concluded Professor Walker-Smith ‘s intention was irrelevant and that it was not necessary to determine whether he had lied to the Ethics Committee in reaching the conclusion the children were investigated under project 172-96.

And I’ll remind you, Mitting also states that the GMC’s “conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to the Lancet children was IN PART founded upon its conclusion that the investigations into them were carried out pursuant to Project 172-96″ (bold for emphasis).

Bottom line?

1) Mitting’s rule does not address the charges against Wakefield–only Walker-Smith–and does nothing to exonerate him.

2) Regardless of what study Wakefield believed he was operating under, he demonstrably committed multiple acts of serious unprofessional conduct suficient to justify being struck off.

3) If Wakefield believed that a set of serious false accusations were standing against him (and really you’ve identified only one–that he was operating under project 172-96–which has not been demonstrated to be false–only that the GMC’s reasoning in reaching that conclusion with respect to Joh Wlaker Smith might have been flawed) he had the same opportunity to appeal that Walker-Smith did but elected not to do so. Wakefield’s decision not to do so does not establish due process was not faithfully observed.

And finally much as you’d like it to be you’re wrong and this is entirely about Wakefield and the acts of unprofessional conduct he committed, not about your perception of the credibility of the journalist who brought those acts to the attention of the public and/or the GMC.

I note that throughout our exchange you haven’t once tried to demonstrate that Wakefield disclosed his conflicts of interest appropriately, or approrpiately disclosed how the study subjects were recruited, or that he did not in fact subject children to colonoscopies, colonic biopsies and lumbar punctures without ethical approval which were contrary to their clinical interests, with the clear intent to conduct research rather than provide treatment. Once again I remind you that even if John Walker Smith were operating under project 162-95–something Mitting does not establish–these acts by Wakefield are entirely sufficient for the GMC to elect to have him struck off.

Here we go with more innuendo. The GMC produced no evidence for their finding and Mitting could find none so your suggestion is that something might be the case even though there is no evidence for it. The accusation, let us be clear, was made by Deer against all three doctors but it concerns the bona fides of the paper and allegation is wrong. Wakefield, unlike Walker-Smith, was not funded to appeal.

This was a process without integrity or transparency. Equally, I stand here representing the issue under my own name and no one knows who jgc56 is.

John, I’m not engaging in innuendo. I’m stately explicitly that Justice Mitting in his ruling re: john Walker-Smith’s appeal does not state as you claim that al the children were known to have been investigated under ethical approval 162-95—for the simple reason that no such statement appears in the ruling. If you are able to provide a direct quote from the ruling where Mitting finds otherwise I’ll certainly revise my position. With respect to “no one knows who jgc56 is”, did you have a point? Surely you’re not suggesting that your arguments are inherently more credible, or that my arguments are inherently less credible, simply because you’re posting using your given name while I’m posting under my Forbes account user name? Surely you’re aware that arguments stand and fall on their own merit, john, not on the basis of who offers or embraces them, or whether or not they’re posting under a given name or a pseudonym.

(And once again I note you’ve entirely ignored the documented instances of serious professional misconduct Wakefield engaged in, to narrowly focus on which specific project he may or may not have been trying to advance when committing them.)

You are just trying pull the wool. The GMC were unable to cite any evidence for the 172-96 case and Mitting could find no evidence of it either. It was a concoction of Deer and the GMC. Walker-Smith had generic permission to retain biopsies (162-95) . Obviously, if Walker-Smith had obtained biopsies without ethical approval he would not be out of the woods, but that was the defence and Mitting accepted it – in fact the documentary evidence exists that that was consent that the parents signed.

Mitting showed that after a three year hearing the GMC were unable to come up with reasons for its most central finding. That is an ample demonstration on its incompetence, and I have pointed to many reasons why we can trust neither it not its findings.

Incidentally, I pointed out the problem in February 2010 in BMJ Rapid Responses and neither Deer or Goldacre or Prof Greenhalgh stopped to enlighten me as to why I was wrong. Deer stil can’t (as we have seen) and of course Goldacre has changed his position many times.

No, I’m drawing attention to a false statement you have made: contrary to your claim Justice Mitting’s ruling does not support the claim that “all the children were investigated under ethical approval 162-95”. He only states taht with respect to Joh Walker Smith the GMC failed to adequately explain the basis for their finding the research published in Lancet was undertaken pursuant to 172-96. Words have meaning, John–you can’t simply insist that Mitting has ruled other than as he staes in his opinion because you’d prefer he’d done so.

“The GMC were unable to cite any evidence for the 172-96 case and Mitting could find no evidence of it either.”

Nowhere does Mitting rule the GMC was unable to find evidence for the GMC finding: only that the GMC offered an inadequate explanation for it.

“It was a concoction of Deer and the GMC. Walker-Smith had generic permission to retain biopsies (162-95).”

Witnesses (other than Brian Deer) have testified to the fact that the Lancet paper was associated with project 172-96.

”Mitting showed that after a three year hearing the GMC were unable to come up with reasons for its most central finding. ” Only that they failed to adequately explain this finding, and Mitting did not identify it as ‘the most central finding’ of the GMC tribunal against Walker Smith—that’s entirely your own preferred spin—he instead notes only that the GMC case against Walker-Smith “was in part founded upon its conclusion that the investigations into them were carried out pursuant to Project 172-96″.

I get that you really, really, REALLY want Mitting’s finding regarding Walker-Smith’s appeal to somehow exonerate Wakefield by association. It doesn’t work that way.

Wakefield had the same opportunity to appeal Walker Smith did, but chose not to do so, and the GMC ruling against him stands.

Notifications were sent to my email box yesterday evening (UK time) that there were new and disparaging comments about me by Dorit Reiss and jgc56 (replying to her) but it seems I am being blocked from viewing them – the opening lines appear in the emails but the rest are invisible on the page. Pressumably, some people can see them and some cannot. But clearly some people have been troubled by my comments if they are reduced to these tactics.

I am still blocked from viewing directly Dorit Reiss’s recent comments, even using a different browser, so it seems to be computer specific.

Although Reiss has assured us that she is not a lawyer she is a professor of law, so her whimsical interpretation of Mr Justice Mitting’s ruling must still be a matter of professional concern. I would like to point out that in attempting to explain his reasoning he lists at the beginning of paragraph 19:

“The following is a non-exhaustive list of the principal facts from which the panel might have inferred that Professor Walker-Smith did intend to test a hypothesis and so misled the Ethics Committee or did not do so”

So, they are only “facts” from which they might have inferred things.

He then lists seven facts of his own “negating the proposition”. So, the second list is intended as a rebuttal by Mitting of the inadequate circumstantial arguments of the GMC in the first list. In paragraph 20 he writes:

“Its conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to the Lancet children was in part founded upon its conclusion that the investigations into them were carried out pursuant to Project 172-96. The only explanation given for that conclusion is that it was reached “in the light of all the available evidence”. On any view, that was an inadequate explanation of the finding. As it may also have been reached upon the basis of two fundamental errors – that Professor Walker-Smith ‘s intention was irrelevant and that it was not necessary to determine whether he had lied to the Ethics Committee, it is a determination which cannot stand unless it is justified by the detailed findings made in relation to the eleven relevant Lancet children.”

And of course this is actually central to the GMC’s reasoning in the case of all three doctors – Mitting quotes from a passage in the findings which refers to all three.

“The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162- 95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.”

Mitting dismisses the five circumstantial “facts” from which the GMC drew inferences with seven of his own. Reiss is not entitled to take the view that these are balanced against each other: Mitting is saying that his set of “facts” negate the superficial case made by the first set (the GMC’s).

A. Judge Mitting did not “rebut” the GMC’s arguments with his own. Using a very common judicial technique, Judge Mitting summarized the arguments on both sides at the opening of his decision. There is nothing in the decision that suggest he is taking a position for or against the arguments. In fact, he conclude both lists by saying: “These, and no doubt other factors, required to be considered by the panel. If the panel did consider them, some explanation of its decision upon them should have been given in its determination.” In other words, the panel was expected to consider both the facts against and the facts for, and explain it’s decision. Judge Mitting’s criticism was lack of explanation. Not result. Let me reiterate Judge Mitting’s conclusion, cited by Mr. Stone – “The only explanation given for that conclusion is that it was reached “in the light of all the available evidence”. On any view, that was an inadequate explanation of the finding. As it may also have been reached upon the basis of two fundamental errors – that Professor Walker-Smith’s intention was irrelevant and that it was not necessary to determine whether he had lied to the Ethics Committee, it is a determination which cannot stand unless it is justified by the detailed findings made in relation to the eleven relevant Lancet children.”

In other words, the problem was lack of explanation. And also lack of determination about intent – where Judge Mitting concluded that Walker-Smith’s intent may have been medical, while Andrew Wakefield’s intent was clearly research, and whether Walker-Smith lied about ethics approval – where Judge Mitting detrained that Wakefield was responsible for the misrepresentation there. Basically, Walker-Smith, as explained to you multiple times, was exonerated for lack of explanation; not because Judge Mitting made an affirmative finding that protocol 172-96 did not apply. He did not.

It is a common judicial technic to open a decision by setting out the arguments on both side. Especially here, when the criticism was lack of explanation, it is a natural thing to do. I hope that clarifies it.

B. Mr. Stone is not blocked from seeing comments; at least, I doubt there is any way to do that. Reply comments on Forbes do not always work, and in that case, the comment appears as an independent comment, at the end of the comments. My previous comment appears that way – as Mr. Stone could have found if he bothered looking through the comment section. I would urge Mr. Stone to ask himself, if he attributes his inability to find comments that are there to a conspiracy, wrongly, what else is he wrongly attributing negative motives to in error.

The problem here is there is no explanation – the five points cited by Mitting by which the GMC came to their inference was the best that could be done. At the High Court hearing the GMC were defending their decision appealed by Prof Walker-Smith and it will not surprise any one to know that Judge Mitting challenged the GMC’s counsel Joanna Glynn to come up with the missing explanation – a last minute opportunity to rectify the omission – and no arguments that Mitting could accept were offered. So after three and half years of investigation and two and a half years of hearing the GMC panel could not come up with an explanation, and after a further two years to think about it they were still embarrassed: fully eight years of wasted time and persecution based on Mr Deer’s denunciation.

There is nothing technical about failing to provide an explanation (or reasoning): it is nothing short of legal mischief and harassment.

As to the other matter it was certainly reasonable for to me to remark upon it because whether by accident or design it put me at a disadvantage in replying in these columns.

It was not that the GMC Panel, despite all the resources at put at their disposal, could not find valid reasons for finding the doctors guilty, as Judge Mitting’s decision shows, the GMC Panel could not find any reasons for finding the doctors guilty.

They just found them guilty.

The case was unprecedented in its length and cost – several millions of pounds taking 216 days over three years when most GMC cases are 2-3 days.

It was presented using the entire resources of the GMC prosecution team and was fronted by a senior trial lawyer – a Queen’s Counsel Sally Smith whose job it was to set out the case and in summing up how and why the GMC should find the doctors guilty.

The GMC also had another senior trial lawyer Nigel Seed – another Queens Counsel – to advise them on the law and how they should conduct themselves and the proceedings.

And yet between them they failed to meet the most basic requirement of providing an explanation for their decision, and even Joanna Glynn, yet a third Queen’s Counsel was defeated in the attempt by Judge Mitting. Prof Reiss, the non-lawyer professor of law, does not see anything wrong. What does she teach her students?

‘…And it was the manufacturers that forced the UK into doing this because, as later recorded in JCVI minutes, they told health officials at a meeting in August 1992 that they had decided to stop producing Urabe MMR and were informing licensing authorities worldwide of its decision. Even so, health officials “agreed on 4 September that no action would be taken to revoke the manufacturer’s licence as a change of purchasing policy was to be made by the department; revoking the licence would have caused a world-wide vaccine crisis.” It would also have revealed an astonishing secret from the bowels of Whitehall: the UK had injected hundreds of thousands of children with a specific type of MMR even though it was known to risk encephalitis-type adverse reactions on a greater scale than an alternative version of the triple-vaccine.’

Revealed: how Whitehall dismissed MMR alarms Members of a government MMR working party met in south London just before the triple-vaccination was introduced in the UK and received some worrying news. http://www.foiacentre.com/news-MMR-070305_2.html

… we are able to reveal what happened at that crucial meeting on 11 February 1988 – and the minutes of other meetings of Whitehall committees dealing with the triple-vaccine – thanks to the freedom of information act (FOIA). And these minutes provide a unique insight into how officials came to introduce a nationwide MMR programme in the UK despite receiving a series of alerts from overseas authorities that raised questions about the safety of the triple-vaccine. For all the controversy about whether MMR causes autism, the minutes reveal that there was real concern that the triple-vaccine would trigger several other devastating conditions among some children. The concern was not about autism, but encephalitis-type conditions, including meningitis, with symptoms such as swelling of the brain, swelling of the lining of the brain or spinal chord, or swelling of the brain and the lining of either the brain or spinal chord.

…“Members read a report of cases of mumps encephalitis which had been associated with MMR vaccine containing the Urabe strain of the mumps virus. The Canadian authorities had suspended the licences of MMR vaccines containing the Urabe strain,” record the minutes. In light of this, could officials go ahead with using the Urabe MMR in Britain? [But of course!]

…There was confusion in Whitehall over the action taken by the Canadian authorities. They had not in fact, at that stage, withdrawn the licences for Urabe MMR; but, as a precaution, they had decided to stop using it. And this was not the first time that the alarm had been raised within Whitehall about MMR. An early sign of trouble came back in May 1987 following “adverse reactions” in America. This was a month after ministers had decided that a UK MMR programme should be an “option”. Although Whitehall minutes are infamous for presenting as anodyne an accounts of events as possible, the sense of unease remains clear in the records of the meeting on 1 May 1987 of the “Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation” (JCVI), which advised ministers to introduce MMR. The minutes record: “The meeting questioned the dedication and commitment of appointed officers and [identity withheld] expressed his reservations concerning reported adverse reactions to MMR in the USA.” Sweden’s Central Microbiological Laboratory said in a letter to British counterparts four months later that it had 52 cases of “febrile convulsions probably associated with MMR vaccination”, including several with encephalitis symptoms. These were out of 360,000 doses, and Sweden continued to vaccinate even children with a previous history of convulsion.

… “This gave a rate of three convulsions per thousand doses of MMR,” the minutes say. The working party “expressed concern” about giving the triple-vaccine to children with personal or family history of convulsions. We have established that the data from Canada related specifically to Urabe MMR, while the figures from America and Sweden concerned the form of MMR that replaced it in the UK in 1992. This was the background in which the MMR working party received news in February 1988 about cases of mumps encephalitis linked with the triple-vaccine in Canada and how these had led the authorities there to stop using Urabe MMR. Despite this, the UK began injecting hundreds of thousands of children with Urabe MMR from October 1988.

…And the warnings from overseas continued. In May 1990, the JCVI recorded that its sub-committee on “adverse reactions” had “especial concern” after receiving “reports from Japan of a high level of meningo-encephalitis associated with the administration of MMR.” Japan was using a Urabe MMR. However, the adverse reactions committee “con-cluded that the Japanese experience may be due to different reporting/investigating criteria or other local factors.” Officials “also felt that the methods of surveillance in the UK would detect problems were they occurring on that scale.” One unidentified JCVI member “was concerned about the possibility of the Japanese experience being widely published in the UK.”

That’s patently false. The Journal Nature only published a letter that David Lewis sent to the BMJ. David Lewis is part of Wakefield’s “defense team” and he is a human waste “sludge expert”.

Lewis is also the guy who located in Wakefield’s private office at his residence, some hand-scored reports on the bowel biopsies for the children in Wakefield’s “study”, and handed them over to the BMJ.

Sy again that you receive no compensation of any kind for flacking vaccines. I did post the link, twice, and it was deleted. Here it is again:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111109/full/479157a.html

Here is the link to Bernadine Healy ringing the alarm bell on over vaccination on CBS News website and Evening News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-open-question-on-vaccines-and-autism/

Better hurry up and delete this one too before too many people see it.

“According to Healy, when she began researching autism and vaccines she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association. That seemed to counter what many of her colleagues had been saying for years. She dug a little deeper and was surprised to find that the government has not embarked upon some of the most basic research that could help answer the question of a link.

The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer.”

Thank you for the link. The article certainly covers a claim by Lewis that casts doubt on some of the allegations against Andrew Wakefield, but it doesn’t really conclude either way. It just summarizes what Lewis is claiming and Mr. Deer’s response. Has there been a follow-up?

It’s unfortunate Dr. Healy thought so, against the evidence. Hopefully, the additional data since 2008 would have reassured her on that score. We now have numerous studies examining whether there is a link. No credible peer reviewed study support it; the only support comes from the debunked work of people like the Geiers and Andrew Wakefield’s collaborators.

“it is unfortunate”- Healy believed that because of the preponderance of peer reviewed research, just as she said. You are denying reality. You cannot overcome the simple irrefutable fact that the former director of NIH, and past president of the American Red Cross, said on CBS Evening News that IOM is “scared to study children with autism because of where the science may lead.” Healy has more credibility and objectivity than a paid vaccine advocate such as your self.

Can you please deny one more time that you do not receive any compensation of any kind for flacking vaccines?

Say again that you receive no compensation of any kind for flacking vaccines, as you have posted before. Go ahead. Say it again.

Dorit Reiss you make a big deal about lilady being able to come up with a link to support her claims, but do you really think something from briandeer.com is a credible source to discuss what Brian Deer claims?

You are nonsensical.

I would normally agree with you that name calling has no place in a forum such as this, and I try to stay away from it as much as possible. However, given past experiences with lilady’s posts, I would have to agree that Josh provides an apt description.

I agree. We must be polite and show links to our evidence. Here is the link to Eugenie Reich’s Nature article:- http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111109/full/479157a.html The (mentioned) UCL investigation was quietly abandoned after a letter from Dr Lewis. The UK Government Science and Technology Committee and Higher Education funding authority washed their hands of it. Histopathologist Professor Amar Dhillon, Lancet co-author, gagged by UCL from commenting in Nature, was permitted a letter to the BMJ explaining his position. http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7907. Eleven co authors met and discussed the pathology and came to a concensus. As Prof Dhillon states:-”Thus, at the time of submission of the Lancet 1998 publication, with the limited supplementary information available to me (which I had been prevented deliberately from knowing during the study); and in the context of a comprehensive clinicopathological review by trusted clinical colleagues, the designated diagnosis of colitis seemed to me to be plausible. ” Below the link to Dr Wakefield’s letter to Emily Willingham, (also below her Forbes article). http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/05/andrew-wakefield-responds-to-emily-willingham-and-forbes.html#comments

A. I referred to the article from Nature – after Mr. Maser linked to it – in later comments. Basically, it describes Mr. Lewis’ letter and suggest there is a debate about whether Andrew Wakefield committed fraud, without taking a position. If you say the UCL investigation was abandoned, then there is no ruling – that’s hardly in Andrew Wakefield’s favor.

B. The Dhillon letter simply reinforces the point that there is a small number of people who dispute the fraud. Conclusive evidence, it is not. And quite apart from the pathology report, let me remind you of Mr. Chadwick’s, Andrew Wakefield’s Research Assistant, testimony before NVICP – where he testified that the samples about the measles virus in gut were negative – when the paper reported them as positive.

C. Andrew Wakefield’s choice to use litigation to deal with criticism is problematic. The claim almost certainly has no chance whatsoever in the U.S., and it reads, frankly, as an attempt to intimidate a critic into silence via unjustified legal threats – something the anti-vaccine movement has a record of doing: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/handling-debate-by-threatening-legal-action-anti-vaccination-activists-in-israel/.

“That’s patently false. The Journal Nature only published a letter that David Lewis sent to the BMJ. David Lewis is part of Wakefield’s “defense team” and he is a human waste “sludge expert”.

Lewis is also the guy who located in Wakefield’s private office at his residence, some hand-scored reports on the bowel biopsies for the children in Wakefield’s “study”, and handed them over to the BMJ.”

http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-1.htm

You really shouldn’t believe the “science” you read on Age of Autism.

I have the Journal Nature link up right now. Would you care to show us where Nature “openly challenges Deer’s assertions of research fraud”?

Your allegations about me being compensated for “flacking vaccines” are not true. I am a retired public health nurse clinician-epidemiologist, who has never been compensated from any pharmaceutical company/vaccine manufacturer.

You don’t “like” my link to Brian Deer’s website about David Lewis’ “qualifications”? How about providing some proof in the form of a link to a reliable website, that this ex-employee of the EPA, whose expertise is in human sludge management, has the qualifications to discuss MMR vaccine and the now disproven link to the bogus diagnosis of “autistic enterocolitis”?

You know how to use PubMed, don’t you? Use your google to key in MMR Vaccine+Autism on the PubMed search field, to find 388 entries that find no link between MMR vaccine and the onset of autism:

“I would normally agree with you that name calling has no place in a forum such as this, and I try to stay away from it as much as possible. However, given past experiences with lilady’s posts, I would have to agree that Josh provides an apt description.”

Really, Mr. Foster?

Have you actually read the article which Dr. Lipson references…or are you just trolling the thread and supporting Josh Mazur’s filth?

It is not a letter to the editor, is it? It is an article in Nature, just like I said.

This depends on what one means by “article.” If you are trying to pass off a few column-inches in the news section as an actual paper in Nature, as I suspect many who aren’t familiar with the literature would take this remark to mean, then no, not really.

You provided just one of the blogs from the “journalists” at Age of Autism” that is a personal attack on Dr. Reiss.

Dan Olmsted and John Stone, two of the other editors have repeatedly personally attacked Professor Reiss. They have provided personal information about her and her workplace which is calculated to affect her livelihood and which have resulted in multiple calls to her workplace. Readers have provided the name of her husband and his workplace, which have resulted in harassing phone calls to him.

Another of the AoA posters provided the name of professor’s Reiss’s child.

She and her family have now received threatening phone calls at her home.

That’s the way the yellow journalists at Age of Autism work; they moderate out every comment that questions their accuracy, yet the editors and the posters have engaged in repeated violations of Professor Reiss’ privacy and Professor Reiss right to feel safe.

Typical behavior for Anne Dachel, Dan Olmsted and John D. Stone. For shame.

Again, let’s look at the news-article aspect. Read the article–it’s a lot of “he said/she said” reporting. The article is titled, “Fresh dispute about MMR ‘fraud’”, not “Fresh dispute about MMR ‘fraud’ *resolved*”.

Can you point to where the author, Eugenie Samuel Reich, concludes which side is correct?

Which is to say, people cite the news article in Nature as an “appeal to authority” but ignore the fact that the “authority” in this case never came to a conclusion. It was just a reporting both sides of an ongoing “dispute”.

Perhaps those flogging this article as something it is not would be so good as to read it again, for content.

I used to think that Lewis was an expert on sewage sludge, but then I got a big bundle of stuff that showed he was not an expert on that. The only thing I ever found Lewis to have court-acceptable expertise was the sterilization of dental and medical equipment.

Lilady do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Dr. David Lewis is not part of Wakefield’s defense team, he is Director of the National Whistleblowers Center and yes he is an expert on biosolids, he has been a thorn in the side of the EPA for years on this topic. Interesting how you will stoop to using anything to try to make someone look bad.

Others have already proven that you are lying about the Nature letter coming from Lewis. And as usual the only “evidence” you can come up with is yet another link from…wait for it…briandeer.com.

Notice that she put “defense team” in quotes. As I just did. She appears to be speaking colloquially. Mr. Lewis has certainly taken it upon himself to offer Mr. Wakefield support, including throwing a fundraiser for Mr. Wakefield at his “church”.

I’d admit I am worried. Andrew Wakefield is not the only one at fault, but he and his admirers’ misrepresentations contributed to the spread of false claim that lead people not to protect their children against diseases – and as this and Dr. Willingham’s article pointed out, also deterred scientists from examining a potential area. Both things are bad for children. Yes, I sometimes am scared that we will have to pay a high price in children’s lives and suffering before people realize the risk of anti-vaccine misinformation.

you are the one in charge of spreading disinformation. How about a post on Japan withdrawing govt recommendation for HPV series? Crickets.

I worry about vaccine nazis like you knocking on my door and stealing my children or jamming a needle in them at the point of a gun. Your entire set of arguments collapse if you don’t have the VICP to coweer behind.

Now-say again that you receive no compensation of any kind for flacking vaccines. It is on par with the other lies on this “blog” saying the Nature article, which I have now posted five times, is a letter to the editor and not an article by Reich. What won’t you lie about?

It is unfortunate that Japan – once again – acted in haste to remove a recommendation for a vaccine (the vaccine is still available – just not recommended) based on no data. They have done it before, with whooping cough and the MMR, and paid the price in illness and death each time.

No, I do not get paid to comment online about vaccines. My job as an academic does cover writing and speaking in conferences, and my latest articles are mostly about vaccines, but as long as I write, teach, and do public service, I’d get the same salary whether or not it’s about vaccines.

you use that word unfortunate alot, don’t you? It is no unfortunate. It is reality. Everything that point to vaccines causing brain damage gets that word- unfortunate. The VICP is unfortunate too, eh?

Do you receive compensation for flacking vaccines, yes or no? I did not ask about “commenting online.” I asked whether you receive compensation of any kind for flacking vaccines and you avoided answering. Why?

It is certainly reality that Japan decided not to recommend HPV vaccines based on unsupported claims of pain, with no medical evidence, in spite of the fact that HPV infections kill over 2000 Japanese women each year and harm many more. I think it’s unfortunate; not preventing these infection, leaving women to preventable deaths and suffering, is horrible.

I did not avoid answering. I explained that my job involves writing. I have been writing articles about vaccines, so my salary does cover that too. But as I explained, my salary is not dependent in any way on writing about vaccines: I do not get more to do that, and would not get less if I did not.

Twice I have answered your inappropriate personal question. If you insist on misunderstanding, it is your problem.

It’s still not a peer reviewed article. It’s a news piece – and one which did not conclude: it just reported that there were some who disagreed with Mr. Deer, provided Mr. Deer’s respond, and did not come down one way or the other.

Dorit, nobody claimed this was a peer reviewed scientific article. That is a red herring. This was not new research – it was written regarding allegations of malfeasance. You said, “It’s an article reporting on a letter to the editor to BMJ.” Nature did more than report on a letter.

It is unfortunate that Brian Deer is captured on video saying, “Yhose chiuldren don’t have bowel disease” to the parents holding a picture of their son, whose colon was removed because of bowel disease.

The association between bowel disease and ASD has been part of the medical lexicon for 20 years. Only in the land of vaccine injury denialism is this news any cause for surprise.

That is a good example of what happens when there is a real problem with a vaccine. The H1N1 vaccine did, rarely, cause narcolepsy in people already at risk of it in Scandinavia. The benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risk, since H1N1 is dangerous; but the problem was real, transparently disclosed, and now steps are taken to prevent it. There is no conspiracy of silence: when there are real vaccine problems, they are openly acknowledged and dealt with.Fortunately, they are rare.

It is unfortunate that Brian Deer is captured on video saying, “Yhose chiuldren [sic] don’t have bowel disease” to the parents holding a picture of their son, whose colon was removed because of bowel disease.

To a mother holding an x-ray showing her son’s grapefruit sized ball of impacted feces he says, “That’s not bowel disease! That’s constipation!”

These parents reported severe GI problems, that’s a fact, not something invented by Dr. Wakefield. All the vaccine defenders on this blog are denying real problems, whitewashing, attempting to alter reality.

Okay Boris, shall I tell you about how the malignant cranks did that? You wanna know how it was done?

A Ms Heather Edwards, whose son Josh was nothing whatsoever to do with the Wakefield GMC hearing, turned up with a picture of her son, who had a big chunk of his bowel chopped out at a different hospital. Nothing to do with Wakefield, nothing to do with the GMC hearing.

So, I have a conversation in which I point out – entirely accurately – that the children in the Wakefield research did not have inflammatory bowel disease.

The cranks see their chance and intercut my comments with pictures of this kid who, however tragic, was nothing to do with the case. He had, in fact, been featured in the Sun newspaper (which is now behind a paywall, of I would show you the article).

You see Boris, you are being scammed by people who want to make accusations about other people, but who behave like that. Pull any stunt – and the losers have been the thousands and thousands of parents who were led up the garden path.

You see Boris, you are being scammed by people who want to make accusations about other people, but who behave like that.

Not in the slightest; this is exactly what I surmised. However, Mr. Maser, in the throes of his embarrassing tantrum, failed to provide the source, and a cursory search failed to turn it up as well. (For those who do not wish to sit through the entire propaganda piece, the relevant item is at around the 50-minute mark.)

“So, I have a conversation in which I point out – entirely accurately – that the children in the Wakefield research did not have inflammatory bowel disease.”

It’s interesting to note that Mr. Wakefield’s assertion was that almost all autistics he saw (or were seen by his team, to be more precise) had inflammation. The original 12, plus “Up to Jan 28, a further 40 patients have been assessed; 39 with the syndrome.” I believe he claimed even more.

And, yet, when a team reviewed records in Sweden recently, they found that inflammation was not associated with a prior ASD diagnosis and was only moderately associated with a later diagnosis of ASD.

Another recent study, this in the US found that about 1/2 of autistic children reported a chronic GI complaint. But, only 12 patients of the entire cohort of 164 warranted colonoscopies. Of those 12, 6 showed inflammation.

6 of an initial cohort of 164. And yet, Mr. Wakefield claimed all had inflammation.

Even assuming 6 of 12 whose cases warranted colonoscopy, how did Mr. Wakefield end up with more like 1-2% instead of 50%?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24753336

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24068245

Mr. Wakefield claimed to have found a new syndrome, which he coined “autistic enterocolitis”. He didn’t. What attention he did focus on autism and GI disease was misplaced.

The children seen at the Lancet were referred to the gastroenterology dept of the Royal Free hospital because they had persistent serious bowel problems, so of course they had more IBD than the general autistic population. And the 1998 paper did not make any statements generalizing their findings to all people with autism. They did not say that a certain percentage of all autistic children have inflammatory bowel disease. They said: “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.” And: “We describe a pattern of colitis and ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia in children with developmental disorders. Intestinal and behavioural pathologies may have occurred together by chance, reflecting a selection bias in a self-referred group; however, the uniformity of the intestinal pathological changes and the fact that previous studies have found intestinal dysfunction in children with autistic-spectrum disorders, suggests that the connection is real and reflects a unique disease process.”

Also, at this particular time and place an MMR vaccine containing the Urabe strain of the mumps virus was being used, which may have contributed to a higher rate of adverse reactions involving neurological and gastroenterological inflammation.

Here, by the way, is another analysis of Andrew Wakefield’s attack on Dr. Willingham: http://penumbrage.com/2014/05/03/is-andrew-wakefield-a-fraud-and-a-bully/ “Three things strike me. One, this is Wakefield acting off his own bat. He has not taken legal advice. That is pending. He has written a threatening letter to a blogger to bully her into silence “pending legal advice.“ Two, he is not going to do anything unless he gets a successful outcome in Texas regarding his action against the BMJ (Deer and his co-defendants ). Three, talk of prosecution and defendants in relation to civil law is a total nonsense. There is only one criminal in this case and he can count himself lucky that nobody has seen fit to prosecute him yet.”

Gee, I wonder if it has become such a difficult topic to address because researchers are scared shitless to buck the system because they witnessed the epic professional crucifixion of Andrew Wakefield.

For at least 5-6 years, Andrew Wakefield was a media darling, interviewed all over (and repeating the unfounded claims of a connection between MMR and autism). Then Brian Deer exposed the problems in what he did: hiding conflicts of interests and so forth.

Criticizing someone who had been caught in this kind of behavior is both justified and well founded. Andrew Wakefield actually got off lightly: he still, apparently, works treating children, unfortunately still leading some parents to trust him, in spite of his record, and still has a circle of admirers willing to support his claims – again, in spite of his past.

Except that the MMR scandal Mr. Wakefield fueled cost the autism community millions of dollars and years of researcher effort.

Not to mention Mr. Wakefield’s theories being the fuel behind and industry of faux “treatments” which have caused physical harm to autistics and drained their families of the money they need to support their children.

So, yes, MMR and autism are linked. Not in the way you imply and not in a way that has done this community a bit of good.

That’s an interview of Dr. Krigsman, a DAN! doctor who is a colleague of Andrew Wakefield’s, which was videotaped by the company (Autism Media Channel) which is owned by Andrew Wakefield. Dr. Krigsman has a very checkered past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Krigsman

Krigsman “expert witness” testimony in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Vaccine Court) has been judged as not credible:

“he U.S. Court of Federal Claims (commonly known as the “Vaccine Court”) by parents seeking compensation for damages purportedly caused by vaccination. The “Special Masters” rendering decisions about these cases have questioned his credibility due to previous regulatory sanctions by the Texas Medical Board and Lenox Hill Hospital, as well as concerns regarding the curriculum vitae provided by Krigsman. They noted concerns regarding a title he said he held at New York University Medical School which may not have matched his duties as well as possible misrepresentations of publications he has published.[1][3] In one case, the judge noted that he thinks Krigsman was not a “credible witness” and that the parents who brought the case were “misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment.”[3] In another case, the judge noted of Krigsman’s qualification for identifying a new disease like “autistic enterocolitis” which is “unrecognized by other authorities in the field, were, even when inflated, sadly lacking” and that his testimony about the existence of “autistic enterocolitis” was “speculative and unsupported by the weight of the evidence.”[1]”

“This article concludes with “a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s research”.”

Mr Wakefield and his supporters tend to claim that any investigation of the GI tract in autistics is a “replication” of his work.

Consider the Lancet paper: http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm

The most discussed “result” was that the onset of autism was within 2 weeks of exposure to MMR:

“In eight children, the onset of behavioural problems had been linked, either by the parents or by the child’s physician, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. Five had had an early adverse reaction to immunisation (rash, fever, delirium; and, in three cases, convulsions). In these eight children the average interval from exposure to first behavioural symptoms was 6·3 days (range 1-14).”

Let me get the nuance of these two Forbes articles clear, because it really is verging on the preposterous now after 16 years …

So a preliminary study enabled by the Royal Free and the eminent John Walker Smith meant to highlight ‘something new and of interest’ that is then used to show justification for further, larger studies and funding (just like normal) is targeted after a media frenzy over a personal statement by Wakefield that he would not give his children the MMR, but would give single versions due to HIS concerns over possible ‘association’ with regressive autism, while the focus of that study was about ‘novel’ GI pathology in autistic kids was glossed over and essentially ignored … good so far?

Then, unlike any other examples (name just one, any) of medical investigation, which I can not recal even one such example in 34 years at least, plus the use of an reporter / hack (Brian Deer) with no prior medical training as an investigator, and the extremely quick joint action of Evan Harris MP to ‘go after’ this man was based on what grounds exactly? What even justified the quick response and action at this preliminary stage before investigation?

The only grounds I can think of are that he said something contrary to the pubic health message and called into question the pathology of autism and possible involvement of one vaccine in the media spotlight during high public concern over possible adverse reactions to that MMR against the backdrop of the 2/3 strains licenced circa 1992 and known to cause high adverse outcomes and death .

. and this alone launched an investigation into the man and his research? Does no one find this even remotely odd?…

Read the testimony (all 218 days of testimony) available on the internet as well as the decision of the GMC which revoked Andrew Wakefield’s license. Then come back to defend the disgraced and discredited former medical doctor Andrew Wakefield.

” is targeted after a media frenzy over a personal statement by Wakefield that he would not give his children the MMR”

Really? You think that’s all that caused the controversy?

First off, Mr. Wakefield made many statements calling the MMR dangerous and claiming that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

Second, the media pandered to Mr. Wakefield for years. He had a movie docu-drama about his research. Then it came out that had been hiding facts. Hiding the fact that he was employed by the attorney managing the MMR litigation–employed since before the Lancet article was published.

He failed to inform people that he had multiple business plans to develop and market products to support the litigation he felt was going to happen.

He quashed results from his own lab that showed that his hypothesis was incorrect.

He misled the scientific community and the public about the fact that the Lancet was not a “ case series” but instead was an investigation involving a large number of children whose families were involved in the MMR litigation. And, he was involved with bringing them in to the Royal Free. But to the public they were just a series of kids whose families happened to chose the Royal Free and Mr. Wakefield was just a super smart guy who saw that there was a pattern.

It’s easy to see patterns you create.

Shall I go on?

“What even justified the quick response and action at this preliminary stage before investigation?”

Yeah, multiple ethical violations involving the care of disabled children and years later he leaves for the U.S. where he lands a job paying $270,000 (much more than his UK salary) and, after many more years, loses his license to practice in the UK. A license even he said he didn’t need.

But anyway, here we are still blaming Wakefield after 16 years for the ‘lack of appropriate GI investigation’ into the pathology of ASD kids?

Maybe I am unique, but to me the glaringly obvious main reason(s) and cause is the vilification of a researcher who dared inadvertently to question a sacred cow of our public health bodies and pharmaceutical industry.

* Please don’t pretend that funding would be or is freely available to researchers to continue or persue such focused study or any ‘contentious’ issue, and there are many.

* Please don’t insult our intelligence by pretending that even if said researchers could find funding, that they would persue such research if they wished to maintain their career path and standing. There is no climbing to be had.

* Please don’t insult our intelligence with the presumption that major journals would consider publishing ANYTHING that remotely confirmed similar or otherwise findings and that might highlight associations with vaccination.

* He who pays the piper, dictates the tune ….

The whole issue is smoke and mirrors of the highest order, with large dollops of cognitive dissonance and hubris. The scientific research system is broken, there is (almost) no such thing anymore as independant unbiased research … too often one can read a paper which provides stats and figures that show one thing, only to be met with the complete opposite conclusions at the end.

The real culprits lie at the heart of our public health bodies and the pharmaceutical industry ….if they really wanted to ‘find out’ if there is such a thing as novel GI disease in ASD or allay the public fears, then they hold the key and have done for sixteen years … stop with the Wakefield scapegoat and start demanding funding for the research they should be doing!

The research into the MMR vaccine and every other vaccine has already been done and no link was ever found between the MMR Vaccine and the onset of Wakefield’s bogus diagnosis of “autistic enterocolitis” and the onset of autism caused by MMR or any other vaccine:

How many more studies would you want, to prove to you, that there is no link between MMR Vaccine or any of the Recommended Childhood Vaccines and the onset of autism…or any other developmental disability or disorder?

“But anyway, here we are still blaming Wakefield after 16 years for the ‘lack of appropriate GI investigation’ into the pathology of ASD kids?”

Yes. We are looking back at the lost opportunity of the past 19 years (going back to when Mr. Wakefield first took on autism) and saying–how could things have been different today and what went wrong.

Had Mr. Wakefield actually championed the idea that there are GI diseases in autistics and followed that lead, he could have been a force for good. Instead, GI disease was a tool for his business plans and his stance on the MMR vaccine (which was already quite negative).

He used autism and GI disease as the hammer to pound on the MMR. That’s not a path to helping autistics with GI diseases.

“* He who pays the piper, dictates the tune ….”

Ironic. Mr. Wakefield was paid, a LOT, by attorneys trying to make a case against the MMR vaccine.

“* Please don’t pretend that funding would be or is freely available to researchers to continue or persue such focused study or any ‘contentious’ issue, and there are many.”

Read the GMC hearing transcripts. Mr. Wakefield was offered support by his hospital to continue his work and prove his hypotheses. Mr. Wakefield chose instead to leave. Don’t insult my intelligence.

“The whole issue is smoke and mirrors of the highest order, with large dollops of cognitive dissonance and hubris.”

that sums things up rather nicely. Only you are pointing your finger at the wrong people. Mr. Wakefield has enough hubris, cognitive dissonance, arrogance and is a master at smoke and mirrors.

Here we are years after he was found guilty of multiple ethical transgressions and people still believe he’s innocent. He could teach graduate courses in smoke and mirrors.

Lastly … one would do well to listen to Assistant Professor Krigsman at 6:15 onwards explaining why in his experience the whole field of ASD GI disease and pathology has been ‘toxic’ rather than these hit pieces in Forbes trying to obfuscate…

The video: Arthur Krigsman Interview: http://youtu.be/U83U0AWTnmg

Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms (Feb 2010)

To remind people again, for several year after Andrew Wakefield’s harmful, unsupported comment in his initial press conference and after Andrew wWakefield was a media darling. Interviewed, taken seriously. Parents listened to him – which led to decline in immunization and media outbreaks. Four children died in Ireland from measles.

In other words, it was not his attacks in vaccines that led to actions against them. Unfounded as they were – his own paper did not support them – they brought him attention, fame, adulation.

Then Brian Deer exposed his hidden conflicts of interests and the problems in the paper – and more information came out during the GMC investigation. Andrew Wakefield’s loss of standing with the public, and the GMC sanction, were the direct result of those discoveries. Not his claims about MMR: the finding of his ethical failings.

Again: when someone is caught doing such things, sanction is appropriate. It was appropriate to sanction Andrew Wakefield, just as it would be appropriate to jail Thorsen if convicted. In fact, given the harm he caused, Andrew Wakefield got off very, very lightly.

I would urge Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, and Emily Willingham to defend the case in court. This is a subject of too great an importance to be bouncing around on internet blogs and in the occasional published article, and the charges need to be aired and answered under proper judicial procedure.

As a scientist I am deeply troubled by this entire saga, and would encourage those facing the defamation action from Dr. Wakefield to answer it rather than challenging the jurisdiction of Texas where it was brought.

Have you read the bogus nuisance defamation suit that Wakefield instituted against the BMJ, Dr. Godlee and Brian Deer?

Have you read the threatening letter that Wakefield sent to Emily Willingham and to Forbes, which was first published on the crank anti-vaccine Age of Autism blog?

Are you aware that Wakefield sued Mr. Deer three times for defamation and was unsuccessful and was ordered by a judge to pay restitution to Mr. Deer for all legal costs?

Go and read Mr. Deer’s website briandeer.com to see all the papers associated with all four of the lawsuits and come back to tell us that you defend these harassing lawsuits.

That threatening letter sent to Emily Willingham and to Forbes is Wakefield’s latest gambit to shut down science bloggers who post articles about autism and the lack of association between vaccines and the onset of autism. Wakefield needs constant massaging of his massive ego and needs to hit up his “marks” for more money to support his lush lifestyle and to pay his legal bills associated with his bogus defamation lawsuits.

As things stand, there has been no legal hearing on the fraud allegations which are of such severity that they should not be left floating around the blogosphere.

Indeed, aside from the quasi legal hearing at the GMC which, as noted by Brian Deer above, gave insufficient reasoning for its decision, the only court hearing on any of the charges against the doctors resulted in exoneration. The whole state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory, and if there is merit to the fraud allegations then those who are making them should welcome a court procedure.

We would have been ready to defend the case in London, which is a vastly more onerous jurisdiction in libel, but is the correct forum. The burden of moving a case entirely rooted in England to Texas would be so unfair on one party that it raises a question – costs aside – as to whether one could achieve fairness.

If Wakefield had wanted his day in court, then he should have sought it in London, where he has brought three similar vexatious actions in the past.

You haven’t read the transcripts of th GMC hearing and the GMC decision which revoked Wakefield’s license.

The two links you provided to studies are authored by Krigsman and other crank researchers and have not been replicated. Krigsman is a DAN! doctor who testified during the Cedillo hearing that he scopes every autistic child, even those who have no signs or symptoms of GI problems.

I am not sure I agree with you that the GMC’s decision in relation to many of the allegation against Andrew Wakefield was not well reasoned. As pointed above, the Walker-Smith decision was focused on a specific question: intent as to the invasive tests performed on the children. As to the other allegations against Andrew Wakefield, there was an explanation in the GMC’s decision.

I also disagree with having those allegations handled via a defamation suit against critics in a forum that, as Mr. Deer points out, is the unnatural forum. Andrew Wakefield chose to terminate his U.K. suits. Why? Again, the only plausible reason I can see is the one Mr. Deer raised – in the U.K., loser pays. In every other sense, the U.K. would be a better forum: its libel laws are more plaintiff friendly. It’s hard not to believe that Andrew Wakefield or his lawyers concluded he has no case and was unwilling to risk having to pay costs.

And threatening to sue Dr. Willingham over the claims, placing the burden of defending them on her reads like an attempt to silence her, probably because Andrew Wakefield wrongly thought she can be easily intimidated.

A judicial forum is not the only forum in which Andrew Wakefield can speak up and make his case, if he does not dare sue in the U.K.. If he has answers to Mr. Deer’s claims, he can publish them. So far, the only one addressed here by his defenders related to the pathology. Mr. Deer convincingly pointed out there were other issues where the claims were, well, problematic. Those were not addressed here. Or elsewhere that I know.

Hear, hear Mr Lachman, I second your opinion and overview of the situation, and particularly the ‘quasi’ legal hearing of the GMC … Note: Prof Walker Smith funded his own court case and cleared his name with a concluding statement of the appeals judge being:

‘…In May 2010, Prof Walker-Smith lost his licence to practise along with Dr Andrew Wakefield who was at the centre of the MMR research. A GMC fitness to practise panel found both men guilty of misconduct over the way the research was conducted.

Its verdict followed 217 days of deliberation, making it the longest disciplinary case in the GMC’s 152-year history. Today the GMC suffered a serious blow when Mr Justice Mitting, sitting in London, ruled the verdict and the decision to strike off could not stand.

The judge criticised the disciplinary panel’s

*** “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion”. ***

The judge said: “It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again.”

He urged that in future such cases should be

*** “chaired by someone with judicial experience”. ***

Allowing Professor Walker-Smith’s appeal, the judge said the panel should have decided whether he had told the truth about his intentions when he carried out treatments…..

*** “The GMC’s approach to the fundamental issues in the case led it to believe that was not necessary, an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel’s determination flowed. It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing. If he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure. If not, he did not, unless perhaps his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician. Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination…

Dr. Lipson- Investigation into the possible association between gut disease and ASD was stymied not by Wakefield’s discredited and retracted Lancet 1998 article. It was stymied by public health officials and doctors who are scared of where objective study into such an association may lead.

As Dr. Bernadine Healy, former director of NIH and past President of the American Red Cross, said on CBS Evening News, on the CBS News website, and in her US News and World column: “According to Healy, when she began researching autism and vaccines she found credible published, peer-reviewed scientific studies that support the idea of an association. That seemed to counter what many of her colleagues had been saying for years. She dug a little deeper and was surprised to find that the government has not embarked upon some of the most basic research that could help answer the question of a link. The more she dug, she says, the more she came to believe the government and medical establishment were intentionally avoiding the question because they were afraid of the answer” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-open-question-on-vaccines-and-autism/ Note that the Healy comments are dated 2004- well after Lancet 1998. Further evidence that vaccines are possibly implicated in gut disease has been published in numerous sources- here is a good report from Pediatrics dated 2012: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/Supplement_2/S160.full?sid=1b26e6c5-e371-4647-a54b-aefdae6aa781 In mean time, as more and more credible evidence of malfeasance and lack of accountability in the childhood immunization program accumulates, ( see http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3037), docs such as yourself have engaged in a relentless “shoot the messenger” knee jerk reaction- your current column being an example. The irrationally anti science posters on this very blog post time after time that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the downside risks. Easy to say. The individuals making those assertions are absolutely exempt from any negative outcomes due to the VICP. How many parents claiming vaccine injury have you personally interviewed? How would your medical practice be different if you did not have VICP to cover your vaccine mistakes? Crickets/ The idea that ASD kids have gut issues has been known for decades. The fact that you are just now starting to figure it out indicates that you are woefully unqualified to opine about the matter, but here you are. Further, based on your demonstrated ignorance of a medical problem that Pediatrics and JAMA have been publishing about since at least 2008, I would suspect that you are a lazy, dangerous doc who gets his continuing ed mainly from pharma reps- the big titted ones who you always make time for over the patients that are in your waiting room. Your laziness, willful ignorance, and close mindedness, and that of your colleagues, is what has stymied research on the topic of ASD gut disease association.

You’re some piece of work, Mazur. You have libeled me with your filthy posts and you’re as thick as a plank, when it comes to immunology, bacteriology, virology and vaccine-preventable-diseases.

I provided links to the more than 300 PubMed entries of studies which found no link between MMR and the onset of Wakefield’s bogus diagnosis of “MMR Vaccine-Induced Autistic Enterocolitis. I also provided a list from the AAP of studies from around the world, conducted by respected researchers and academics, which were published in first-tier, peer-reviewed journals. Those studies examined millions of childrens’ vaccine records and their medical records and no link was found between vaccines, the ingredients in vaccines, the spacing and timing of vaccines…and the onset of autism…or any other disorder.

Your turn now. Pick any one of those studies and apply your expertise to refute that study or any other study, that I have provided.

Your an ignorant science illiterate, who does not have the ability to understand any science that is beyond a ten-year-old’s ability.

At what institution does he hold the title “assistant professor”? He was previously listed as a “clinical” assistant professor at NYU med school (i.e. he was not teaching or research faculty) but no longer appears on their website roster.

He started working in Texas before being licensed http://www.casewatch.org/board/med/krigsman/complaint.shtml

His former hospital was concerned that he was doing unnecessary colonoscopies as part of an unapproved research project http://www.casewatch.org/fdawarning/rsch/krigsman.pdf

It’s easy to claim that the environment is “toxic” when one is caught stepping outside the structure of ethical approval for research.

But a lot less than people are trying to claim here. That’s the point.

They did, however, make it clear that Mr. Wakefield and his theory are disgraced and discredited (respectively). But people would rather selectively quote the article and misinterpret it.

Consider these statements:

“But Mr Deer could not stand by his results…” not a conclusion from the Nature news article. Mr. Deer stated that his results were not based on the pathology reports. I.e. he used other information to come to his conclusion.

“That Deer, Godlee, and Bjarnason were forced by Nature journalist Eugenie Reich to concede that there had not been improper interpretation of the biopsies.” Also a misinterpretation of the news article. Mr. Deer was not forced to do anything. The full paragraph shows that Mr. Deer does claim that there was an improper interpretation of the biopsies in the Lancet article.

“Dorit, nobody claimed this was a peer reviewed scientific article.” But, those claiming this news article is somehow supporting Mr. Wakefield have left that piece of information out. To the casual reader, the misunderstanding would be easy, especially when people refer to this as the “Journal Nature” not a news article on the website. I don’t get a paper subscription to Nature, so I can’t check it was in the actual print edition, but it is not a Journal Article. It is a news article. And it is an important point, one which you should have brought up, not me.

Looking at other misleading statements: “The (mentioned) UCL investigation was quietly abandoned after a letter from Dr Lewis.” Interesting in that this leads the reader to the idea that these events are somehow linked other than just in time, but without evidence. If someone can provide evidence that the letter from Mr. Lewis played a role, rather than the UCL just not wanting to spend a lot of money on an investigation which would likely embarrass itself, please provide it. The accusations of unethical and improper conduct go far beyond the intepretation of the biopsy results.

Actually Matt, I wrote a long letter to UCL urging them not to waste public money on another inquiry. Nobody would have believed its findings, and there is no way they could have funded something to the standards of the GMC hearing. I think there was a case for a public inquiry, and more of a case to see Wakefield tested in court.

How about your dealings John D. Stone? You and Clifford Miller run the curiously named “Child Health Safety” blog. You now for a fact the sequence of events about the JABS parents, who, went to the bottom feeding lawyer who had the public funds to investigate claims about the triple antigen MMR vaccine.

That lawyer depleted the funds by making huge payments to Wakefield and others to fix a case against the manufacturers of MMR Vaccine in the U.K.

All that lawyer needed was a disreputable physician with an imagination to come up with a bogus diagnosis. Perhaps you could inform us who arranged for the meeting between Wakefield and that lawyer…and did that person get a “finders fee” for putting the lawyer and Wakefield in touch?

Why was Wakefield paid $750,000 (USD) for his expertise/expert testimony, before a class action type lawsuit was filed? The lawyer squandered the money and depleted the public funds. Tell your JABS friends to chase Wakefield and the lawyer for the squandered money.

Says John Stone who has tried to get an American epidemiologist fired from his post.

Why wouldn’t Wakefield file in London John Stone the most obvious place? Since we’re putting assertions out perhaps it’s because it’s Wakefield who doesn’t really want his activities investigated more thoroughly.

Brian Deer, you and everything you have written is laughable. Except that what you have written has been taken so seriously and echoed uncritically by so many news sources that alas it is no longer laughable and you have destroyed a good man’s career with your lies which fit into the agenda of people devoted to covering up problems with vaccine programs. You should be very ashamed of yourself. In addition to destroying a good man’s career you have hindered the development of science and medicine to address adverse reactions to vaccines. It is you, not Dr. Wakefield, who is responsible for the impairment of research on inflammatory bowel disease among people with autism.

Keith Olberman was correct when he called you a “worst person in the world” for both instigating and reporting on the complaint against Wakefield et al, which is a conflict of interest violating journalistic standards.

It’s easy to just take this chance to slam Mr. Deer. It’s something more to counter the information with facts.

Mr. Wakefield needs to some day step up to the plate and take responsibility for his actions. He trashed his own career. Just because Mr. Deer’s hard work brought it to light doesn’t make Mr. Deer responsible for the downfall.

Mr. Wakefield has delayed not only the research into autism and GI complaints, but into vaccine adverse events. I realize you disagree, but facts are facts. It isn’t that no one wants to take on the topic, but no one wants to be seen as highly irresponsible as Andrew Wakefield. It is a tough topic to handle well and Mr. Wakefield has demonstrated just how poorly one can handle it.

Good point – I’m really only referring to what he has written about Dr. Wakefield.

And yes, I disagree with everything else in your comment. The problem is not that Dr. Wakefield was irresponsible, but that he dared to mention a possible link between the MMR, autism, and GI symptoms, and was severely castigated for that, which had a chilling effect on further research.

I am new to this, but everything I read shows that Andrew Wakefield was not castigated – quite the opposite – until the revelations about his ethical failings came to light. In other words, until it was found that he hid conflicts of interests and misrepresented research. Sorry, the timeline does not fit your claims. And for those things, he deserves the censure, and the consequences. In fact, he got off lightly.

After someone got Brian Deer to file a complaint against Dr. Wakefield, the GMC proceedings began. Unfortunately for those defending the vaccine program, none of the patients had complained about him, so they had to figure out a way to get the proceedings initiated. Brian Deer was the vehicle.

“Well before the programme was broadcast [Mr Deer] had made a complaint to the GMC about the Claimant [Dr Wakefield]. His communications were made on 25 February, 12 March and 1 July 2004. In due course, on 27 August of the same year, the GMC sent the Claimant a letter notifying him of the information against him.”

Meanwhile, the GMC’s lawyers and Deer had come to a mutually beneficial agreement that he not be named as complainant, enabling him to continue reporting and for the GMC’s action to get favourable publicity.

John Stone, your own links, specifically this: http://web.archive.org/web/20120523210655/http://briandeer.com/wakefield/deer-ffw-letter.pdf clarify Mr. Deer’s role as informant rather than complainant. Melanie Phillips, another frothing-at-the-mouth Wakefraud worshipper makes no case that Mr. Deer was a complainant; there was no agreement. So as usual John Stone, you have to lie or just be that clueless to continue to try and deceive.

Furthermore, let’s say for the sake of argument that Mr. Deer was a complainant. So what? How does that change in any way the charges Wakefraud was found guilty of by the GMC? How did Mr. Deer retroactively get Wakefraud to behave unethically and commit fraud in order to what? Complain to the GMC? Your narrative, as usual is preposterous and I suggest you look up Occham’s Razor.

Deer complained – there were three letters of complaint (at least two of which have appeared on line). This is fact and no amount of personal abuse will change it. You say Twyla is delusional but you are just covering up. Of course, we also have to have the ritual abuse of Melanie Phillips but she was just quoting the documents.

There is, of course, an ethical issue of a journalist reporting on a story in which he is materially involved. At what point when he was reporting for the Sunday Times did Mr Deer disclose to readers that he had made complaints about the three doctors (the two letters I saw were very extensive). There is no question of Twyla be delusional – she had good grounds for her claim – but there is question of abuse by you. You now say that it doesn’t matter whether it ws true or not, so why the abuse if it doesn’t matter. And why do you deny events which are a matter of documentary record, about which there is no ambiguity.

Deer complained – there were three letters of complaint (at least two of which have appeared on line). This is fact and no amount of personal abuse will change it. You say Twyla is delusional but you are just covering up. Of course, we also have to have the ritual abuse of Melanie Phillips but she was just quoting the documents.

How fascinating. There are documents to support your claim, you’ve “seen” them so where are they? I have gnomes in my garden; it’s true I’ve seen them. Melanie Phillips, Daily Fail “journalist” is a scientifically-illiterate hack and a bigot. Figures you have to scrape the bottom of the journalistic barrel by invoking kooks like Phillips and Attkisson.

There is, of course, an ethical issue of a journalist reporting on a story in which he is materially involved. At what point when he was reporting for the Sunday Times did Mr Deer disclose to readers that he had made complaints about the three doctors (the two letters I saw were very extensive). There is no question of Twyla be delusional – she had good grounds for her claim – but there is question of abuse by you. You now say that it doesn’t matter whether it ws true or not, so why the abuse if it doesn’t matter. And why do you deny events which are a matter of documentary record, about which there is no ambiguity.

You’re right, there’s no ambiguity because you haven’t established your claim and even more importantly, haven’t established why Mr. Deer being a complainant, which he wasn’t, has anything to do with Wakefraud abusing special needs children and fabricating data. Can’t seem to answer that which should be the crux of you making such hay over complainant v. informant.

As usual you are only trying to establish your case by being abusive (taking a leaf from Mr Deer’s book who labels anyone who disgrees with his account as “a malignant crank”) but Mr Justice Eady said there were three complaints by Deer and Melanie Phillips writing at the time (2009) for the Spectator quotes from the first of them (25 February 2004). Should there be any doubt here is a link to a copy of the complaint itself (the date as given by Mr Justice Eady).

http://www.circare.org/autism/gmcallegations_20040225.pdf

Obviously you are in a doublebind trying to make out on the one hand that the matter is of no consequence while also being abusive to people who mention it. Of course, this is not the only issue I have with Brian Deer (who may continue to call me a malignant crank for all I care) but it is a significant one.

Incidentally, the document also confirms that the erroneous claim that protocol 172-96 was the basis of the “Lancet” paper was central to Deer’s complaint and that Walker-Smith (who he now dismisses as peripheral) was firmly in the frame.

Stop whining about tone Mr. Stone when you blithely characterise anyone disagreeing with you as lying yet keep repeating your demonstrably false misrepresentations of the facts. You have not made your case that Mr. Deer was the complainant, in fact you supplied a letter from an attorney dated after there was a question of Mr. Deer’s role. To whit:

We apologise for any confusion in relation to your status in these proceedings and any difficulties this may have caused you. We have made it clear to all parties that your role is that of informant rather than complainant. Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to Dr. Wakefield’s legal representatives clariffing your status in these proceedings.

The whole letter is worth a read. You still can’t provide any evidence that Brian Deer, if he was the complainant, had any relevance to the outcome. Why is this John Stone? If you are going to go through such excrutiating mental contortions to represent Mr. Deer’s role as complainant, shouldn’t that role be pivitol to Wakefraud’s actions and the outcome?

They arrived at a mutually convenient fiction that Deer was not the complainant but he certainly made the complaints. That he was not named disguised an inconvenient truth – stated by a High Court judge that he made three complaints, and it sounds to me like a shady deal (lack of transparency) which put the public at a disadvantage.

To put it in your crude terms I don’t know what you are “whining” about, Este. In your previous comment you asked me to produce the complaints, so I duly located the first – a detailed, six page document which was dispatched by Mr Deer to the GMC three days after his first article making allegations many of which have now been tested in the High Court and found to be without basis.

Let us be clear that it was you who lowered the tone by stating that Twyla had made a “false” claim, and that she was “delusional”. But her claim was well founded and now completely documented. All the rest is bluster and distraction.

They arrived at a mutually convenient fiction that Deer was not the complainant but he certainly made the complaints. That he was not named disguised an inconvenient truth – stated by a High Court judge that he made three complaints, and it sounds to me like a shady deal (lack of transparency) which put the public at a disadvantage.

I see, you have no evidence to support your claim so you fall back onto a vast conspiracy theory. The high court judge who mistakenly referred to Mr. Deer as a complainant was overseeing the Wakefield suit against Mr. Deer and Channel 4, not a GMC judge.

To put it in your crude terms I don’t know what you are “whining” about, Este. In your previous comment you asked me to produce the complaints, so I duly located the first – a detailed, six page document which was dispatched by Mr Deer to the GMC three days after his first article making allegations many of which have now been tested in the High Court and found to be without basis.

This: http://www.circare.org/autism/gmcallegations_20040225.pdf is hardly a complaint in light of the fact that the GMC’s own lawyer stated this:

I have now had the opportunity to review the GMC’s files. My understanding is that further to your articles appearing in the Sunday Times in February 2004 in relation to your investigation into Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine, you were approached by GMC case officer Tim Cox-Brown, who asked you to supply the GMC with further information regarding this matter.

Neither you nor I know if Deer’s letter was in response to this request; you’re basing your claim on the opening line of that letter and it’s preposterous. You then fill the gaps with conspiracy. Show me evidence and I will accept that Brian Deer was the complainant. You will then have to show why that is even a factor.

Let us be clear that it was you who lowered the tone by stating that Twyla had made a “false” claim, and that she was “delusional”. But her claim was well founded and now completely documented. All the rest is bluster and distraction.

Honestly Stone, stop whining. You routinely put out hit pieces on Emily Willingham and Dorit Reiss provoking harrassment against them, participating in your own while Twyla sits by and laps it up like a dog. You haven’t risen to the level of well-founded and completely documented, far from it. If you don’t like the “tone” then keep yourself in check.

‘But what Deer does not reveal is that on February 25, 2004, three days after his article attacking Wakefield had been published in the Sunday Times, he had written to the GMC in these terms:

‘”Following an extensive inquiry for the Sunday Times into the origins of the public panic over MMR, I write to ask your permission to lay before you an outline of evidence that you may consider worthy of evaluation with respect of the possibility of serious professional misconduct on the part of the above named registered medical practitioners. [Andrew Wakefield, John Walker Smith and Simon Murch.]”

‘If Deer had previously been approached by the GMC for this information — presumably in the two days that elapsed between publication of his article and this letter — this was a strange form of words. For he made no mention that it had thus approached him. Instead, he asked the GMC for permission to lay out his evidence before it. So how can this apparently direct contradiction be explained?

‘One possibility is that Deer had not previously been approached by the GMC, and that there was some other explanation for its lawyers’ letter to him (it does not say, for example, precisely when its case officer had asked him for further information).

‘But if the GMC had indeed already approached Deer before he wrote to it, then it follows that his form of words was highly disingenuous – purportedly asking for permission to present his information while concealing the fact that it had already asked him to do so. And if this was the case, the GMC would seem to have been complicit in this contrived fiction.’

But actually Phillips is falling over backwards to retrieve a highly implausible claim. If Deer had received any communication from the GMC why did he begin as he did – it does not make any sense. Moreover, if there had been such a document it would have closed the point, but there is none in the public domain to date.

At the beginning of this exchange I suggested that you either did not know what you were talking about or you were lying. My best guess is that it was the former and you did not quite realise that you were disturbing a hornets’ nest. Either way the language was realistic: it was challenge and not an attempt to barge persons out of the way by simply being foul-mouthed. It is up to you (or Mr Deer) if you want to conduct arguments in that way and I simply point it out.

“The problem is not that Dr. Wakefield was [responsible] but that he [instead committed scientific fraud to create the false impression of a] link between the MMR, autism, and GI symptoms, and was [discredited as a researcher as well as being found guilty by the GMC of committing multiple counts of unprofessional conduct in the course of the study] which had a chilling effect on further research.”

Ah, Mr. Stone, how decent of you to put in an appearance on the disgraced and dishonest. Not only do we have Wakefield to hand, we have Mr. Maser ably representing the board of the D.A.I.R. Foundation, which has its own discredited member in the form of Patrick Tierney (PMC 3178026).

Now, you may recall that you have left an earlier matter hanging. To wit, you have explicitly claimed that you have the Pubmed-indexed papers that would give you access to Pubmed Commons, a privilege that you promptly abused. Given your silence when requested to actually provide these, and as a result of extensive searching on my part, I have come to the conclusion that you were lying.

What I would therefore like to know is (1) who provided you with the requisite invitation (Toni Bark?) and (2) which J. Stone you appropriated the identity of in order to carry out the deceit.

I have just posted two comments which are held up on moderation, probably due to containing multiple links. I hope they will appear.

I do realize that arguing with the usual commenters here is to some extent a total waste of time, as the minds of Matt, Dorit, lilady, etc. are completely closed to anything I have to say.

Still, I can’t stand for so much misinformation to stand uncontested. So, for the sake of any “lurkers”, I try to provide another side of the story. I encourage anyone interested in these issues to read the following books:

Evidence of Harm by David Kirby

Callous Disregard by Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Vaccine Epidemic edited by Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland

Changing the Course of Autism: A Scientific Approach for Parents and Physicians by Dr. Bryan Jepson

I’m not trying to end vaccination, I’m not trying to convince anyone not to vaccinate. I believe that vaccines are an important weapon in our war on communicable diseases. But I also believe that we have to acknowledge and understand the collateral damage. We can’t just keep piling on more and more vaccines with the assumption that if a few vaccines are good then dozens of vaccines are better. We need to understand what people’s limits are. And who is susceptible to vaccine injury, how to prevent these injuries, how to treat them when they do occur, what are the actual risks and benefits of each vaccine for a given individual, what is the overall impact of giving two dozen vaccines during the first two years of life.

You’re right Twyla. I don’t check out any of your references from those crank bloggers, researchers and JABS parents.

You claim you are not against vaccines; you could have fooled me. Which vaccines, according to your expertise, would you have us eliminate? Show us by eliminating any vaccine of your choice, that the exceedingly rare serious adverse events (on the order of 1:1,000,000 doses administered or less), exceeds the serious, oftentimes deadly, consequences of actually contracting the disease.

I’ve given you all the links to all the sites which provides accurate information about vaccine-preventable-diseases and the intensive safety monitoring agencies which are in place from the time the FDA licenses a vaccine and for as long as a vaccine is administered in the United States.

So, get on the internet to research those websites and post a comment where you compare and contrast serious adverse events following a vaccination-versus-the documented serious consequences of not vaccinating infants and children, according to the Recommended Childhood Vaccine Schedule.

Every amateur anti-vaxxer aspires to be an expert and none of them succeed.

Andrew Wakefield is an unethical man whose actions were exposed. But he has shown time and again that it isn’t about facts. Callous Disregard shows that. Check his citations sometime. They quite often link to papers which have nothing to do with the claims he’s linking to. And that fictionalized account of the mother murdering her son is not only painfully bad prose, it supports the idea that it’s OK for a mother to take such drastic action. He praises her, for god’s sake. And we all know what happened to the child of a recent cause Wakefield took on. After–after–getting Wakefield’s “help” the mother despaired and brutally murdered her disabled son. And Mr. Wakefield is trying to make money and a name for himself as a film maker on that.

OK, that’s everyone’s cue for trashing Dr. Wakefield again and saying that we should pay no attention to anything he says. But anyone viewing/reading these with an open mind will see that he makes some good points.

Why would anyone believe anything that disgraced and discredited former medical DOCTOR says? He’s an opportunist and a charlatan who would NOT know truth, if truth had legs, and smacked him upside his head.

I must be psychic. Like I said, “OK, that’s everyone’s cue for trashing Dr. Wakefield again and saying that we should pay no attention to anything he says. But anyone viewing/reading these with an open mind will see that he makes some good points.”

There are powerful reasons to approach with caution and doubt the word of someone found guilty of multiple ethical failings. And whose self-justification in his book suffers from many inaccuracies: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tovacj/articles/V006/TOVACJ20131126002.pdf.

To be very blunt, at this point, his word is just not good enough, to anyone but his devoted adherents.

Nasty, nasty Twyla: I have NEVER made a disparaging comment about any child…no less a child with medical problems.

I have no patience for parents of autistic kids, who label their children as “vaccine-damaged”, “train wrecks” and “soulless”. I despise parents who use and abuse their children behind closed doors and treat them as lab rats when they subject their children to painful, invasive, dangerous and not-clinically-proven “treatments” such as IV intrathecal stem cell transplants in filthy, unregulated offshore clinics, chelation for bogus heavy metals toxicities, chemical castrations and multiple industrial bleach (MMS) enemas…in a fruitless effort to “recover” them.

I despise the biomeddlers and Andrew Wakefield who maliciously used an obviously mentally ill woman of an autistic boy. Wakefield and his Autism Media Channel owns all the videotape which exploited that boy during his lifetime and continues to exploit that boy 10 months after the boy’s mother and “godmother” brutally murdered him.

Odd, isn’t it that you link to an advertisement that appeared in the Wakefield-owned Media File Magazine, which is selling parents “special needs trust accounts”. I never met Josh, and, again, I have been an advocate for all developmentally disabled children and adults for 37 years. What have you done, and what have your pals at AoA done, to enhance services for kids and adults who are developmentally disabled?

“Gee, I wonder if it has become such a difficult topic to address because researchers are scared shitless to buck the system because they witnessed the epic professional crucifixion of Andrew Wakefield.”

I certainly hope that doctors and researchers are scared of the consequences of acting unethically, as Mr. Wakefield has done and been found guilty of.

“and this alone launched an investigation into the man and his research? Does no one find this even remotely odd?…”

Actually, I believe the investigation by Mr. Deer happened after years of good press for Mr. Wakefield. Including a long docu-drama presenting Mr. Wakefield as a hero.

But, if I recall the way Mr. Deer has discussed it, it quickly became apparent that Mr. Wakefield was “greedy” and, following the money, Mr. Deer found that Mr. Wakefield had kept facts from the public. Namely, that he was working as a highly paid expert witness for the MMR litigation.

Having found that Mr. Wakefield had been dishonest, was Mr. Deer supposed to assume honesty in all other of Mr. Wakefield’s dealings? Say, his quashing of PCR results from his own laboratory showing a lack of persistent measles infection?

When the GMC hearings were held and so much information came to the public’s eye, was Mr. Deer supposed to sit back and say, “Well, that’s all in a few thousand pages of transcripts. Let’s just let the public sift through that stuff”?

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Wakefield was unethical. He was caught. Shoot the messenger if you like, but it doesn’t change the message.

I’m not trying to end vaccination, I’m not trying to convince anyone not to vaccinate.

Which, naturally, is why you spend your time making remarks such as this, which contains two outright falsehoods about about hepatitis B risk and vaccination effectiveness. This, indeed, is a favorite of yours (along with HPV vaccination, which you claim doesn’t prevent cervical cancer, followed by lamely trotting out VAERS and tipping your hat to Michele Bachmann): from AoA, “Our children are not at risk for Hepatitis B nor are they spreading it.” PMID 11694691, Twyla: 16,000 nonperinatal infections a year among children aged 10 or younger.

Or suggesting on “The Vaccine Machine” – as though that itself weren’t more than adequate to demonstrate the point – that someone forge immunization records to evade New York’s requirements for school admittance.

It’s scarcely worth the effort to dredge your effluvium for further examples; your raison d’être is trying to fertilize the world with your personal night-soil FUD.

Dr. Lipson- I suspect that if you had interviewed parents of children with ASD, and carefully did medical work ups on many kids with ASD, the possible association between ASD and gut issues might have become unavoidably obvious after about, say the 500th parental interview, maybe sooner. How many patients with ASD have you examined? The doctors who do routinely examine kids with ASD are not at all surprised at the idea of a possible association. None of those docs are writing columns on Forbes online publicly blaming someone else for their own ignorance. In that regard- you are unique. As for the curiously devoted posters who want to sell me on “the good mercury”- or the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program- or the idea that Japan, with the worlds second lowest rate of infant mortality, somehow “acts hastily” when considering public health policy- really, Dr. Lipson- are you comfortable tying your own professional credibility to those opinions? I bet you would throw your most slavish booster under the bus in a country second if the Japan example were to be repeated here. We could learn a lot by their process, which is curiously not reported on in the Forbes Blog. The government had to present it’s best evidence for HPV vaccination on a televised, live forum, answering questions and objections from eminently qualified, world class medical scientists. The gov’t/industry scientists lost the debate on the merits of the science. The gov’t of Japan did not renew recommendation for HPV series. Of course, those helplessly devoted posters posters cooing with affection for you are scared shitless that just such a debate might happen, and are bending heaven and earth in public and behind the scenes in a desperate, high stakes, last ditch effort to try to stop any thing like it from ever happening. Those posters are staking everything on a “blame Wakefield and McCarthy” strategy, which looks like it is leaking fast to me. Sorry to digress- but- There is one relentless poster who brings to my mind the story of Fritz Faber. He was born a Prussian Jew, if there is such a thing. In his desperation to be accepted and recognized, he renounced is religion, won a Nobel prize for commercalizing the extraction of nitrogen from the atmosphere, and became “The Father of Chemical Warfare.” He died in 1933- after he was forced to admit to the Hitler regime that he was of Jewish blood, but before he saw the Xyklon gas he helped develop used in concentration camps. “During peace time a scientist belongs to the World, but during war time he belongs to his country.” – Fritz Haber Your supporters call to mind the practical politics of Haber- for them science and scientific ethics are a moving target. I hope that unlike Haber they all live long enough to get a good, hard look at the unmasked monster they have slavishly served over their careers. Public, live televised debate on vaccine science would be a great start. The secondary question to be discussed could be: “Explain the paradoxes of the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act. Include a reference to Table Injuries. You have five minutes.”

I think I prefer you when you’re seemingly on the bottle early rather than gasbagging the joint up with quasi Godwins.

By the way, ‘flack’ isn’t a transitive verb, it’s not spelled “Xyklon,” “Faber” didn’t “admit” anything to the “Hitler regime,” which didn’t come into being until 1933, and it’s possible to put spaces between paragraphs.

Really? It was responsible of Mr. Wakefield to hide from the public and his colleagues his financial conflicts of interest (of which there were many)? Read Simon Murch’s comments on Mr. Deer’s 2004 article where he responds to the new information that Mr. Deer disclosed to him.

It was responsible of him to ignore the results of his own post doc, Nicholas Chadwick, who was telling Mr. Wakefield that the PCR results were negative and that the results from external labs were unreliable?

It was responsible of Mr. Wakefield to ignore some of the parents’ information in his Lancet article, information which would have pushed the apparent time to onset for symptoms to months instead of days?

It was responsible for Mr. Wakefield to refuse to accept support from his hospital to do the research in a search to confirm his hypothesis?

It was responsible of Mr. Wakefield to call for clinical investigations on disabled children, when he was expressly prohibited from doing so? Clinical investigations which provided research data?

It was responsible of Mr. Wakefield to call for investigations on multiple disabled children which were not clinically indicated?

It was responsible for Mr. Wakefield to make multiple public statements that the MMR causes autism, when his own research wasn’t able to support such claims?

It was responsible for Mr. Wakefield to attend multiple parent conventions and sit back idly while charlatans lure parents into faux therapies which have no reasonable scientific basis and range into harmful and abusive in nature?

It was responsible for him to go outside approved protocol and use a birthday party as a biological sample opportunity, paying children for blood?

It was responsible for Mr. Wakefield to charge the Legal Aid Board for research costs when the costs were picked up by the National Health Service?

It was responsible for Mr. Wakefield to then divert the leftover money to a different research project rather than return the funds?

It was responsible for Mr. Wakefield to hide the fact that some/many children for his Lancet study were being referred from the MMR litigation? And that he played an active part in recruiting some of them? that they weren’t just a simple case series?

Twyla Ramos refers reader to a number of problematic sources. Let’s examine them one by one: 1) Evidence of Harm by David Kirby : a book by a journalist who served as a mouthpiece for an anti-vaccine organization, SAFEMINDS, which promoted the idea that thimerosal in vaccines caused autism. Since the removal of thimerosal, autism rates have continued to go up, not down. Multiple large scale studies found no such link:http://www.vaccinateyourbaby.org/safe/research.cfm#03.

Callous Disregard by Dr. Andrew Wakefield : It’s natural for Andrew Wakefield to try and defend himself, but given his history, I’d urge approaching with caution. More so since a recent articles found many, many inaccuracies in this book: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tovacj/articles/V006/TOVACJ20131126002.pdf

Vaccine Epidemic edited by Louise Kuo Habakus and Mary Holland : Both anti-vaccine activists, and at least Ms. Holland, in my experience, prone to misrepresent the risks of vaccines as far greater than they are.

I don’t know the final two sources, but given the problematic nature of the first three, I would approach with extreme caution.

In the later part of her comment, quoted below, Ms. Ramos seems to suggest that we do not study the effect of adding more vaccines, nor are we aware who is particularly vulnerable. Both claims are inaccurate. First, manufacturers have to do concomitant studies before vaccines are added to the schedule – studies showing they are safe with the current schedule. And there are studies of combination of vaccines. and a recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report from 2013 that looked at the schedule and concluded there were no safety concerns.

Second, there are known safety factor – contraindications – and those children do not get all or any vaccines. For a very small subset of other children it is unknown who will have a reaction – just as we can’t always tell who will have a complication from a disease.

What people like me won’t accept are claims that things are caused by vaccines when the evidence suggests they are not. Like autism. Uncritically accepting claims of vaccine injury against the evidence is not a good move: it can lead to refusing vaccines without any benefit. For example, since vaccines do not cause autism, not vaccinating won’t prevent autism, just leave the child at risk of disease.

And not accepting claims against the evidence is not denial. Denial is rejecting a large and comprehensive body of literature because you do not like its findings.

“I’m not trying to end vaccination, I’m not trying to convince anyone not to vaccinate. I believe that vaccines are an important weapon in our war on communicable diseases. But I also believe that we have to acknowledge and understand the collateral damage. We can’t just keep piling on more and more vaccines with the assumption that if a few vaccines are good then dozens of vaccines are better. We need to understand what people’s limits are.”

It’s truly odd how Dr. Wakefield has been made the scapegoat even though the Lancet paper had 12 authors. In addition to all the various allegations, for which I have posted various sources as rebuttal, one of the things that has been said or implied is that these children did not really have intestinal inflammation, and Dr. Wakefield somehow falsified these results. It should be noted that all the coauthors stood by the findings of intestinal inflammation. The famous retraction was only of the mention of a possible link between the MMR and these children’s neuro and gastro conditions. The rebuttal stated:

“This statement refers to the Early Report “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children,” (1) published in The Lancet in 1998. It is made by 10 of the 12 original authors who could be contacted. It should be noted that this statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the other co-authors.

“The main thrust of this paper (1) was the first description of an unexpected intestinal lesion in the children reported. Further evidence has been forthcoming in studies from the Royal Free Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology and other groups to support and extend these findings. (2,3) While much uncertainty remains about the nature of these changes, we believe it important that such work continues, as autistic children can potentially be helped by recognition and treatment of gastrointestinal problems.

“We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.”

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-03/l-moa030304.php

In a comment that is still pending in moderation, I listed some links to what some of the coauthors have written confirming their findings of inflammation of the gut.

It’s truly odd how Dr. Wakefield has been made the scapegoat even though the Lancet paper had 12 authors.

Ten of whom formally retracted the MMR connection, leaving Wakefield in the lurch, which prompted Lancet editor-in-chief Richard Horton to state the following in the immediately preceding commentary:

“It seems obvious now that had we appreciated the full context in which the work reported in the 1998 Lancet paper by Wakefield and colleagues was done, publication would not have taken place in the way that it did. These are difficult judgments to make in hindsight. For example, our sensitivity to potential conflicts of interest is very much higher today than it was in 1998.”

Brian Deer, you are calling parents of ill autistic children “malignant cranks”? That’s low. Your attitude is showing. So much for journalistic objectivity.

The video speaks for itself. You have no compassion for these parents nor for their children.

So whines Twyla Ramos a contributor to the clown blog Age of Autism who routinely smears pro-science bloggers and writers, some parents of special needs children. If any of those parents who Brian Deer called malignant cranks had anything to do with the creative editing of that video then they aren’t immune to criticism. If you don’t like it so much then speak up when your own circus side show does it.

The mother, a woman called Heather Edwards, turned up with the picture the Sun uses as a poster. Nothing to do with the Wakefield hearing, the boy was not one of the subjects being examined.

So I take the time to talk to the people outside – and I didn’t bother after this interlude – and one of the malignant cranks then intercuts the video so as to make it look as if I said that this kid, who had had much of his bowel chopped out at a different hospital to Wakefield’s, didn’t have bowel disease.

Oh, how the malignant cranks crowed over that little trick. Worthy of Wakefield himself.

Twyla is a willing participant in the commenting section of Age of Autism.

Since the personal stalking, cyber-stalking epi-wannabe went rogue, the other “journalists” (Dan Olmsted, John D. Stone and Anne Dachel), at Age of Autism have taken on his role, by embarking on a smearing campaign against a respected law school professor. The have published contact information for her employer which has resulted in multiple harassing complaints, in an effort to have her lose her job. The have located her husband and published details about her child.

Recently, their campaign resulted in three threatening phone calls directed at the professor’s husband at his place of employment and directed at the professor at her home.

The clown blog’s moderators do not permit posts that question their position on vaccines, yet they do publish comments that reveal personal information about individuals who are on their enemies “hit list”.

The Sun article that you linked to, in behind a pay wall. Apparently Polly Tommey and Andrew Wakefield got their hooks into Heather Edwards years ago.

The link that Twyla provided to “Josh” is from The Autism File Magazine, which is part of the Tommey-Wakefield media empire in Austin Texas.

Wakefield derives most of his income from that media empire and from various other corporations and charities (The Strategic Autism Initiative, The Academic Integrity Foundation, The Andrew Wakefield Defense Fund), that provide him with additional income.

“Lilady, I am totally against stalking and harassment. I am totally for reasoned kind polite discourse.”

Deeds, not empty words, Twyla. Go back to Age of Autism and post some comments on all those blogs written by Dan Olmsted, Anne Dachel and John D. Stone. Tell them you are totally against stalking and harassment:

Why didn’t any of those parents on that YouTube video, whose children were part of Wakefield’s “study”, testify on behalf of Wakefield during the GMC hearing? Each of those parents, who now claim undying devotion to Wakefield and who have appeared numerous times in videos, and who collectively wrote a book about their hero Wakefield, were complicit with Wakefield to falsify their childrens’ medical histories. Is it any wonder then, why they didn’t testify on behalf of Wakefield, because they would leave themselves open to charges of perjury for false testimony before an administrative hearing?

Those same parents were referred by JABS, a crank anti-vaccine, anti-science group, to the bottom-feeding lawyer, and thence to Wakefield.

Tell those parents to look at the 14 million Pounds Sterling which were disbursed to Wakefield and others, from the Legal Services Board account, by the bottom feeding lawyer, to fix the proposed case against manufacturers of the triple antigen MMR vaccine:

Brian Deer, since you have been so kind as to grace us with your presence on this thread, this gives me the chance to ask two questions I have been wondering about:

1) How have you earned a living over the past 10 years? Do you have an employer, or are you freelance? Have you done other work besides your work against Dr. Wakefield? If not, were you able to support yourself on that? It doesn’t seem like that alone would be enough work, but I haven’t seen other articles by you – of course, I may have missed them.

2) You wrote an article comparing: - the medical histories from the Lancet 12 children’s “red books”, and - the histories taken by the Royal Free doctors based on their examinations of the children and interviews of their parents. You looked for and found discrepancies, which is not surprising because contemporaneous records taken by medical staff are not going to be exactly the same as parental recollections elicited at a later date. My question is, how did you get access to those “red books”, which are the medical records kept for each English child? Even the Royal Free doctors did not have access to the red books. The parents did not authorize release of their children’s records to you. So how were you able to access them? Some of us have been wondering about this.

Deer didn’t have access to the red books. He made the most unbelievable stink when it was pointed out that they were an important part of the record which he didn’t have access to (when, of course, he should not have had access to any of it). I wrote this piece about the issue in 2011:

Lilady, I am quite sure that the entire staff of writers and editors at Age of Autism are against stalking and harassment too. Furthermore, I have no role at AoA other than reader. So you are just spouting irrelevant inanity.

Then why do they keep writing hit pieces on their perceived enemies knowing full well that the even more unbalanced of your lot will act upon them? You also contribute columns to the clown blog as I demonstrated the last time you made that (yet again) false claim. You also comment prolifically and not one time have I ever seen a comment from you condemning harrassment-provoking posts

Your argument is predicated on “awkward wording” and simple disbelief that Deer was approached even in light of the GMC attorney’s letter? No wonder you believe a fraudster like Wakefield and torture Walker-Smith’s successful appeal to exonerate Wakefield.

You have hearsay, the mental meanderings of a nutbar hack journalists, some “awkward wording” and your own undying need to believe in a narrative that requires a conspiracy of global proportions. Where are all these other “complaints”? Why doesn’t Deer appear in GMC documents as a complainant? Oh right, it’s part of the vast conspiracy. Provide actual evidence and not conspiracy theory.

This seems have got dislocated from our exchanges on p.13-14 but you don’t seem to have got over your propensity for “hate-speak” comments instead of reasoned argument. As to the wording it is awkward but there would have been no need for it if the GMC had reqested the information – it would be “Thank you for enquiry..”. But there is no hint of that – whatever was said later in the “get off the hook” letter – which is also a piece of bureaucratic doublespeak pre-empting disclosure: by that stage a state of affairs which had existed well over a year and which remained hidden from the public for whom Deer remained an apparently disinterested reporter. The proper thing for him to do would have been to leave the reporting to others.

As I have pointed out much of what was claimed in the very first of Deer’s complaints was disproven in the High Court in 2012, notably the stuff about 172-96.

But there is no hint of that – whatever was said later in the “get off the hook” letter – which is also a piece of bureaucratic doublespeak pre-empting disclosure: by that stage a state of affairs which had existed well over a year and which remained hidden from the public for whom Deer remained an apparently disinterested reporter. The proper thing for him to do would have been to leave the reporting to others.

You see you can’t provide any rebuttal for the GMC’s attorney’s letter which specifically states: a.) Confusion over Mr. Deer’s role. b.) Mr. Deer’s information was solicited by the GMC and, c.) Clarifying Mr. Deer’s role as informant per review of GMC documentation.

All you are doing is saying, “nah, that’s not true because I don’t want it to be.” Provide evidence Stone; that’s all I asked for not hand-waving.

As I have pointed out much of what was claimed in the very first of Deer’s complaints was disproven in the High Court in 2012, notably the stuff about 172-96.

Again, can you grasp that Walker-Smith is not Wakefield? Can you grasp that Wakefield did not appeal and the charges against him have been proved and stand? This is Olympic level mental gymnastics to believe otherwise.

The confusion is because Deer entered into the role of complainant unsolicited according to his letter, and made three complaints as confirmed by Mr Justice Eady. I point out that the 172-96 claim which was the substance of the complaint was proven unfounded in the High Court in 2012 and it remains an injustice and an anomaly that Wakefield stands guilty of the charge because he was not granted funding to appeal – equally it is an injustice to Prof Murch even though the GMC did not impose sanctions against him. It is very clear that Deer was calling for the prosecution of all three doctors on the basis of a completely erroneous set of allegations (with the GMC being all too happy to oblige).

Anyhow, Mr Deer has gone remarkably silent, as I point all this out, and he should answer for himself rather than hiding behind a pseudonymous poster who can disappear into the night.

Let’s here from Mr Deer then – he is damning himself with his silence.

The height of irony coming from someone who first lied about having Pubmed-indexed papers and now pointedly ignores questions about just how his fraud upon the National Library of Medicine was carried out.

In any event, I have corresponded with Mr. Deer. His interest is most certainly not in you and your robotic droning, Mr. Stone.

No one could possibly dispute that Deer was not named as “the complainant”: the point is that he complained which was disclosed neither by him to Sunday Times readers or Channel 4 viewers where he was peddling his journalism about Wakefield. In April 2004 the GMC wrote to Wakefield that there were complaints against him, in August 2004 when they wrote again it was clear that the only complaints they were considering were Deer’s.

It is for Mr Deer to answer. I am still waiting. He looks like he is hiding when he has been so voluble before. If what you say is true -and it isn’t – then Mr Deer could easily answer for himself. But he is silent.

re: “I have corresponded with Mr. Deer. His interest is most certainly not in you and your robotic droning, Mr. Stone.”

It is certainly understandable that Brian Deer would not wish to debate John Stone, who is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on these issues. I imagine Mr. Deer thought that he would be preaching to his choir of sycophantic pharma-supporters – what a disappointment to him that he encountered opposition.

This article is so backwards it’s just mind boggling! Even if Wakefield committed fraud ( and I do not believe he did ), who and what caused this line of research to be tainted? It was the reaction and actions from the political/Pharma/lobby. It seems like anytime there is any research that leads to doubt for any vaccine, there is a major lobby to suppress or attack it. UNLESS that research also comes to the conclusion that vaccines are still the best thing we have and what we need to do is start creating a better vaccine. No body is ever allowed to go off that message, that is the crime that will be punished, no matter what the findings. I am sad to see the suppression of science that I see as causing way more harm then good.

“UNLESS that research also comes to the conclusion that vaccines are still the best thing we have and what we need to do is start creating a better vaccine.”

It’s true that the development of safe and effective vaccines is arguably the single most significant medical intervention extant. The only other candidate I can think of that might challenge vaccination for the title is the development surgical anesthesia.

And yes, given the demonstrated ability to prevent suffering, injury and deaths due to infectious disease, the appropriate repsonse should we identify real problems with vaccines currently in use is to replace them with improved vaccines–not to abandon vaccinating against infectious diseases and accept that the inceidence of disease will rise again to pre-vaccination levels. (Consider measles–it is estimated that prior to vaccination more than 4 million cases of measles occurred in the US annually (Langmuir AD. Medical importance of measles. Am J Dis Child 1962;103:54-56) compared to189 cases occurred in the US in 2013.)

“It seems like anytime there is any research that leads to doubt for any vaccine, there is a major lobby to suppress or attack it. UNLESS that research also comes to the conclusion that vaccines are still the best thing we have and what we need to do is start creating a better vaccine. ” This is simply untrue. Research was published on the narcolepsy following H1N1, on the limitations of the pertussis vaccine, and more.What is criticized is fatally flawed or fraudulent science.

It’s actually pretty reasonable to me that scientists would hesitant to be seen walking in the footstep of a claim based on fraud.

The research published on the limitations of the pertussis vaccine most certainly DID “end with staying on message”. Dorit you know this. Just a mere example : http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussis

Even with the very obvious evidence admitted that the vaccine seems to be contributing to whooping cough cases they still end “on message”.

“these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection. Highlighting the extreme consideration that should be exercised in future vaccine development, this work supports the use of vaccines that also target B. parapertussis as a potentially more efficient way to battle whooping cough.

And the plan in the meantime is to just vaccinate more, vaccinate pregnant women, EVERY pregnancy, even if it is every year, based on research using 33 women they even admit needs a lot more work.

Every research article that is not outright attacked is because he ends with the ” vaccines are the best way to prevent anything, until we make a better one.” And right away other messages appear almost ignoring the science and insisting everyone vaccinate and that not vaccinating is causing the problem.

This type of thing makes perfect sense if your mission is vaccination. But parents mission is the health and safety of their kids.

I am just saying that these groups of people come out this issue with different goals and perspectives.

As an experienced Labor and Delivery and NICU RN, if I were to be pregnant now I would not take this vaccine during this pregnancy. The recommendation that all pregnant women get this vaccine may have well been given with the mission of the prevention of illness, suffering and death as a consequence of pertussis infection, but the nail is vaccines, and it kind of boggles my mind that they would make this recommendation based on what they know about the current vaccine and how little they know about giving it during pregnancy, not to mention the actual chances of each individual infant being infected with pertussis under 2 months of age.

I realize we are going a bit off topic here, but my point is a vaccine is not always the best option at every given point in time, but if a researcher were to say so, or , even hint at an alternative they are going to get the “off message” attack. Do nothing to frighten the herd. Not being frank and honest is exactly what “frightens the herd” and keeps possible good research suppressed and unfunded. That and conflict of interest. That’s my opinion, people just no longer trust the CDC for those reasons, not because they are uneducated, misinformed, etc.

Frankly I WANT people, including myself to have more faith in these institutions, it makes me sad as one who loved the health field and science.

This is a partial reason I do not see the benefit verses risk for myself and my baby if I were pregnant right now, to get a Tdap vaccine.

The CDC is now recommending women get a Tdap vaccine during every pregnancy, regardless of the number of pregnancy’s or how far apart they are.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6207a4.htm

This is based on their decision analysis model showing giving postpartum MAY prevent 3-35 deaths verses during pregnancy MAY prevent range: 4–17 deaths.

Safety data on use of Td during multiple pregnancies have not been published. ACIP believes the potential benefit of preventing pertussis morbidity and mortality in infants outweighs the theoretical concerns of possible severe adverse events.

ACIP concluded that experience with tetanus-toxoid containing vaccines suggests no excess risk for severe adverse events for women receiving Tdap with every pregnancy. ACIP stated the need for safety studies of severe adverse events when Tdap is given during subsequent pregnancies. Plans for safety monitoring in pregnant women following Tdap administration include enhanced monitoring in Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and utilizing the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) to assess acute adverse events, adverse pregnancy outcomes affecting the mother, and birth outcomes; assessing risks for rare adverse events in pregnant women after Tdap will require data collection for several years (31).

So basically, the CDC is just making several assumptions to MAYBE prevent a few deaths and saying that there really is no research to back this up so you must do that research after the fact by first vaccinating large groups of women first.

A theoretical risk exists for severe local reactions (e.g., Arthus reactions, whole limb swelling) for pregnant women who have multiple closely spaced pregnancies. Arthus reactions and whole limb swelling are hypersensitivity reactions that have been associated with vaccines containing tetanus toxoid, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, and/or pertussis antigens. Historical data on multiple doses of Td and tetanus toxoid vaccines (TT) indicate that hypersensitivity was associated with higher levels of preexisting antibody (24–26). The frequency of side effects depended on antigen content, product formulation, preexisting antibody levels related to the interval since last dose, and the number of doses (24–26).

Future research needs will address the effectiveness of Tdap vaccination of pregnant women to prevent infant pertussis morbidity and mortality, the impact of timing of Tdap during pregnancy on infant pertussis, and safety of multiple doses of Tdap in pregnant women. CDC will monitor and assess the safety of Tdap use during pregnancy. Results from these studies and monitoring systems will inform future considerations made by ACIP on use of Tdap in preventing infant pertussis morbidity and mortality.

These are just some of the issues stated directly from the CDC, there are many others. According to the ACIP’s own analysis there was a mean of 18 infant deaths ( under a year ) from pertussis over the past 11 years. They are hoping to cut that down to 3 with this plan although they are really hoping to cover the first 2 to 3 months, as the maternal antibodies from rapidly decline from then on it appears.

But there are 4 million babies born each year, an individual babies risk of dying from pertussis is therefore or about 4.5 in a million or 0.0000045!

This dangerous experiment. The theoretical benefit is for the first 2 months or so of the babies life, but that’s a risk almost 4 million are taking that MIGHT benefit 18, but might also harm many more.

Marcy, you’re understating the benefits of pertussis vaccination during pregnancy, first by considering only the reductions in mortality and seond by citing range values for that reduction, rather than the predicted number of additional deaths which would be prevented by vaccination during pregnancy. From your link:

Vaccination during pregnancy is estimated to prevent three times as many deaths than postpartum vaccination: 9 deaths versus 3. While death is the most serious adverse consequence of infection, death isn’t the only adverse consequence: vaccination during pregnancy is also projected to reduce both the total number of infant cases (906 fewer cases versus 549 with postpartum vaccination) and more than double the reduction in the total number of hospitalizations (462 fewer versus 219).

I can read it and I am very clear on what they are saying. In addition MIGHT PREVENT is theoretical on their part and the actually number of deaths and even serious illness for infants to young to vaccinate is very, very small, to justify vaccinating 4 million pregnant women a year, never mind if they have several several children closely spaced. I am sorry but to me, to make this type of recommendation based on assumptions and admitting they need to do a lot more research AFTER making this recommendation for something that is effects such a small number of infants in such a small time frame (the first few months ) is just crazy to me. In no way is the benefit worth the risk, unless there was a full blown epidemic going on in that individuals community and surroundings.

Also saying things are reduced by “double” is misleading to people. That could well mean that out of a 2 million babies, of the million that got the treatment only one got sick, in the other million given placebo, 2 got sick.

People need to know the actual numbers of pregnant women that would need to be vaccinated to avoid 1 case, hospitalization or death for an infant under 2 to 4 months of age.

Right now that can not even be answered although Cochrane is working on it. http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD010923/vaccination-in-pregnancy-to-prevent-pertussis-in-early-infancy But with the numbers already given by CDC is has to be pretty crazy, and right now it’s all going to be completely theoretical.

But you’re arguing that reducing infant deaths three-fold isn’t a significant benefit (ignoring for the moment the significant reductions in number of infections and hospitalizations that do not result in death)?

What degree of reduction do you feel would be required before physicians reccommend women be vaccinated against pertussis during pregnancy?

With regard to “the actually number of deaths and even serious illness for infants to young to vaccinate is very, very small”, how many children would you need to see become seriously ill and die before you’d agree recommending pertussis vaccination during pregnancy was justified?

jgc56 is confused by the difference between relative and absolute risk. A threefold reduction in relative risk can easily be not worth the cost. The absolute chance of being hit by a meteorite has been estimated at one in 20,000,000,000,000. Reducing this threefold (i.e. reducing realtive risk threefold) is woth almost nothing. The chance of being killed is still almost nothing.

I don’t think jrc56 is confused. Whether or relative or absolute risk, vaccinating women against pertussis during pregnancy has substantial benefits in terms of baby lives saved and hospitalization prevented. Or would you like to argue against those?

I’m not confused at all regarding relative risk. Marcy didn’t offer an argument from relative risk: she instead a) mis-stated the predicted outcome when vaccinating during pregnancy to minimize expected benefits and she’s asserted that the number of additional deaths prevented (ignoring significant reductions in incidence of and hospitalizations due to infection) aren’t sufficient for a recommendation that pregnant women be vaccinated against pertussis during pregnancy without indicating what the incidence of additional adverse outcomes are expected to occur if the recommendation occurs (all she offers is handwaving about theoretical complications of vaccination in the event of multiple closely spaced pregnancies).

As for your assertion that a three fold reduction in the risk of infant death (and again you’re ignoring the significant reductions in incidence and hospitalization for no reason whatsoever) being insufficient to justify vaccination during pregnancy, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Marcy: if reducing deaths 3-fold isn’t sufficient to justify the recommendation, what would be? Reducing 4-fold? 10-fold? 100-fold?

The annual birth cohort for the US is about 4 million. That means we are going to vaccinate 4 million pregnant women a year to THEORETICALLY prevent 6 deaths. The risk in vaccinating 4 million pregnant women could easily cause more then 6 deaths ( to mothers and their unborn infants ) and their just in human error and anaphalxis, without even going into any other risk factors. Why even look at benefit verses risk here because with these numbers unless vaccinating pregnant women has NO known or theoretical risk at all, I do not see how you can justify the numbers. Most especially for THEORETICAL benefits.

“vaccinating women against pertussis during pregnancy has substantial benefits in terms of baby lives saved and hospitalization prevented. Or would you like to argue against those?” Dorit, I am assuming you read what I posted and if not at least the ACIP and CDC’s own statements, guidance and research? THEORETICALLY preventing 6 lives out of 4 million vaccinated and maybe even 8 million including the mother’s life (as she is being vaccinating and at risk from vaccine as well). is a substantial in terms of lives being saved? You think that is a settled fact with no room for disagreement? As for hospitalizations vaccination during pregnancy MIGHT prevent 462 verses 219 for post partum vaccination so vaccination during pregnancy MIGHT prevent 243 hospitalizations. This is now the second vaccine to be given to all pregnant women based a study of giving it to only 33 healthy pregnant women with no complications of pregnancy. However and almost half of those women needed a c/s for fetal distress but this was dismissed as “not being considered related to the vaccine and are often reported complications of pregnancy and infancy”. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1866075 22 out of 33? Ok, maybe I am talking antidotal here, but even when I worked high risk labor and delivery, I never observed anywhere near a an over 60% rate of C/S’s for fetal distress, never mind in healthy in pregnancy’s. Of course the authors call for more research ” Further research is needed to provide definitive evidence of the safety and efficacy of Tdap immunization during pregnancy.”

The benefits are not theoretical: studies out of Baylor College of Medicine, Duke University of Medicine and the Group Health Research Institute of Seattle all found that TDaP vaccination during pregnancy was safe, vaccinated pregnant females mounted a similiar immune response to that of non-pregnant females and at the time of delivery women who were vaccinated during pregnancy exhibited significantly higher concentrations of antibodies to pertussis compared to women who received the vaccine postpartum. Further, researchers continued to follow babies born to women who were vaccinated during pregnancy for their first year of life and after receipt of routine vaccines for pertussis and measured their antibodies after the first three doses of DTaP and after their first booster: they determined that even if their mother gave them antibodies from her Tdap vaccine during pregnancy the infants were able to respond to their own vaccinations. (https://www.bcm.edu/news/reproductive-health/pertussis-vaccination-in-pregnancy-protects)

It’s your insistence that vaccinating during pregnancy will expose women to increased risk that’s theoretical (and flies in the face of the study findings).

Let me ask again: how many fewer dead infants do you believe is necessary to justify the recommendation, especially in light of NO evidence that vaccinating during pregnancy is associated with greater risk than vaccinating post partum?

Vaccination during pregnancy will prevent not only infant deaths but also incidence of disease and hospitalizations that result in outcomes other than death.

Well we have both been quoted from the same ONE study that the CDC used for recommendations before it was even published ( and it was just published). https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1866102 editorial http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1866075 The very same study based on 33 healthy low risk pregnancy’s. I am not going to repeat everything I already posted as I stand by it.

The benefit is theoretical and even though authors do not consider it otherwise. Just because 33 babies had a higher concentrations of antibodies to pertussis from the vaccine ( and I was not able to check to see if they had tested to see if any one the women actually already had acquired antibodies already from having pertussis undiagnosed in the past ) does not mean they protected from getting whooping cough. That MIGHT be true but we also thought the vaccine would last much longer then it does, and we also were surprised to learn that the vaccine allows for longer lengths of colonization thus doing nothing for “herd immunity” and possibly having the opposite effect. If these babies did not get pertussis if they were exposed to it, that would be more impressive. Of course I am not suggesting we do that, but I am saying that having higher concentrations of antibodies to pertussis compared to women who received the vaccine postpartum is not at all surprising but does not they will not get pertussis. Same thing with looking at safety of just 33 infants. The authors rightfully say more research is needed. Also, do you think that over 60% of those babies having enough fetal distress to require a C/S is something to simply dismiss as normal? Unless that is normal for the hospital they delivered in I do not see how they can just dismiss this. If it is normal I would think we have a problem Houston.

Marcy, I”m curious. You keep insisting that we cannot rely on the scientific predictions of the benefits associated with pertussis vaccination: you keep referring to them as merely theoretical.

But surely you realize that if that is the case–if measuring outcomes in this manner will only provide a theoretical understanding–scientific determinations of the RISKS associated with pertussis vaccination (which after all employ the same methodologies) can be no less “theoretical”.

On what rational basis are you picking and choosing which evaluations to accept and which to reject–i.e., why do you accept we have the ability to accurately determine the likelihood of the occurrence of adverse reactions (I believe you offered anaphylaxis as an example) but cannot accurately determine the the likelihood of the occurrence of benefits (fewer infections, fewer hospitalizations, fewer dead children)?

It’s on some basis other than which supports a preferred and predetermined conclusion, I trust?

Severe systemic reactions such as generalized urticaria, anaphylaxis, or neurologic complications have been reported after receipt of tetanus toxoid containing vaccines as well as peripheral neuropathy and Guillain-Barré syndrome and The Institute of Medicine has concluded a causal relationship. Also Exaggerated local (Arthus-like) reactions are occasionally reported following receipt of a diphtheria- or tetanus- containing vaccine. These reactions present as extensive painful swelling, often from shoulder to elbow. The Vaccine being used has had it’s insert recently revised on 3/2014 and it states ” USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS Safety and effectiveness of Adacel vaccine have not been established in pregnant women.” In addition it was licensed and approved for use as a single dose in persons 10 through 64 years of age. Adacel vaccine is not approved for individuals less than 10 years of age. Safety and effectiveness of Adacel vaccine in persons less than 10 years of age have not been established.

Those are the KNOWN risks for starters and we really know very very little about the risks for a fetus.

You ask “ On what rational basis are you picking and choosing which evaluations to accept and which to reject”. I am looking at the CDC and the manufacturer’s own research and data and the CDC’s statistics that I have already quoted and can be found in the links I have already provided.

Vaccinating over four million women a year for a few months of possible protection to prevent 6 deaths given the already KNOWN risks and knowing that maternal vaccination is NOT the only possible prevention method ( everyone around the baby could wash their hands and wear a mask or be vaccinated themselves ) .

Listen, we can hash this out forever, but with the facts given by the CDC themselves, there is just no way the benefit is worth the risk.

If it is a year that is a low in the cycle and no or very rare cases, the chances of my baby getting no less dying of pertussis is less then getting hit by lightening.

This is an experiment and the drug company has to keep a pregnancy registry and CDC must monitor closely and do more research.

If you believe the benefit is worth the risk for you, by all means have at it! But I would not surprised if the vaccination rate in pregnant women is low.

The fact that the research concluded that it’s appropriate to continue vaccinating and preventing people from whooping cough does not negate the fact that there is plenty published research on vaccine risks and problems. What would you suggest, that researchers not recommend parents protect children against pertussis? To remind you, parapertussis is a much milder disease: (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt10-pertussis.html)

And it’s completely unclear – in fact the evidence is against the claim – that the vaccine increases parapertussis. Three large scale trials, summarized and linked to here: http://lymphosite.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/40_times_more_human/ show otherwise.

In short, the problems and limitations of vaccines are openly discussed, and researchers who addressed them are not penalized – in fact, it probably helps their career. Unless they are found to have engaged in ethical violations.

Me? I think a researcher caught in misrepresenting data and other ethical violations should be censored and penalized for that.

” What would you suggest, that researchers not recommend parents protect children against pertussis?”

No but I would be honest about the herd immunity situation for that particular vaccine ( due to other research done by CDC ) and I sure would NOT encourage pregnant women to be vaccinated during pregnancy UNLESS there was an outbreak happening in that parent’s community and certainly not EVERY pregnancy and I would explain that we BELIEVE this may to more good then harm but we are not certain. I would then suggest the usual other helpful things like breastfeeding, keeping the baby away from people for 2 months, etc. This is the truth so tell it to parents. ACIP needed to feel reassured that most women would not be vaccinated more then twice in 13 months, but what about the others that wind up having annual pregnancy’s? They are just the experiment until they can “ revisit” the policy ( in the words of the ACIP )

In 2012 and 2013 there were 9 confirmed cases of infant pertusis all 9 3 months and under. That means my child would have about a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of death from pertussis not even counting that it runs in cycles and that being vaccinated during pregnancy is meant to try to cover from birth to maybe 6 months, so it is a very small window of possible protection. Unless there was an outbreak where I live, I do not see how any rational person sees the benefit verses the risk when the vaccine has only been tested in 33 healthy pregnant women with infant monitoring for a year on only a few parameters and when over 60% needed a C/S for fetal distress! That does not even count in the known risks of the vaccine for adults and babies ( post natal ) and even the chance of serious adverse reaction from simple human error which can not help but occur for 4 million plus vaccinations a year. This is not even counting multiple pregnancy’s which was another concern for ACIP and CDC until they were reassured that most women would have no less than 13 months between pregnancy’s and few women would have that happen more than twice. This is in their own reports! This is pretty much an off label use of this vaccine and requires a pregnancy registry.

CDC’s own criteria for vaccinating during pregnancy: “Benefits of vaccinating pregnant women usually outweigh potential risks when the likelihood of disease exposure is high, when infection would pose a risk to the mother or fetus, and when the vaccine is unlikely to cause harm. ”

Furthermore according to CDC” The effectiveness of maternal antibodies in preventing infant pertussis is not yet known, but pertussis antibodies can protect against some disease and the severe outcomes that come along with it.”

So the benefit is NOT known which is why they repeat in several places and research that more research needs to be done.

“ but pertussis antibodies can protect against some disease and the severe outcomes that come along with it.” CDC is very unclear here, it is know that a mother with natural antibodies from “wild infection” can do this, but it is also know that for pertussis, the two have shown to be not equal, which explains why CDC says IT IS NOT KNOW if this will work. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pertussis/tdap-pregnancy-hcp.htm

If you want to say that limited data on 33 healthy women that admits more research is needed Shows this is safe during pregnancy ( never mind multiple ones ). The fact that Pertussis kills babies is meaningless. Falls kills babies too, but that does not mean a vaccinating pregnant women will help or is the only prevention. Again If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. The Organizations that help make these recommendations are hammer heavy, but to most pregnant women this is just not going to fly if they are given the information for their own and baby’s personal risk verse benefit. Just because the vaccine is not working well, does not mean that giving more and more of it to more and more people is the answer, especially if the disease runs in cycles and the numbers are just not that large.

I’m sorry to see you dismiss 9 preventable infant deaths, and over 2000 cases. There is no evidence the vaccine is unsafe – and evidence that it is safe. And we do take precautions to prevent other harms to babies – like putting them in car seats.

Again: no evidence of danger from the vaccine. Evidence of its safety. Evidence the disease is dangerous to babies. And you believe most women will not act to protect their baby? I disagree.

That being said, the limited animal research in pregnant Baboons DOES look promising for protection at 5 weeks of age when their mothers were vaccinated in the third trimester although I can only read the abstract and safety study is not mentioned. However, even though this looks promising because the subjects were actually infected with pertussis at 5 weeks, it is not enough to give the go-ahead to 4 million women annually for all the previously mentioned reasons.

“Not to mention, the reason there were only nine deaths? Oh, that’s right! Because we vaccinate against pertussis in the first place.”

And what does that have to do with vaccinating pregnant women with Dtap?

Are you suggesting that any medication that has been well tested and proven effective on some populations is always good for all populations? I would hope not.

However, your statement is more in line with the the subject of this article and the reason I mentioned the subject of vaccinating pregnant women with Dtap. That is the snakiness and attack mode to anyone who even suggests that a vaccine might not be appropriate for some situations and perhaps we should do some more research or use another method of prevention right now.

I do not dismiss 9 “preventable” infant deaths any more then you dismiss any “preventable” deaths or harms from vaccines, which you may also claim are rare, as is the number 9 out of 4 million. Just because there is a death from a disease does not mean a vaccine would have prevented that particular death or that it may have harmed or killed other babies or people. That is why people look at benefit verses risk. If you know of long term large studies proving the safety for both mothers and their unborn infants measuring more then a few basic outcomes of giving this vaccine I would like to see them. CDC itself says more studies are required and the study authors admit the same.

I can as easily say I am sorry to see you are willing to put 4 million women and another 4 million plus infants at risk ( the us population, our future) with so little evidence to avoid an extremely tiny rare event. Very rare event is the usual term that is used for serious adverse events for vaccines, but perhaps it is better to use true stats and numbers for everything equally so it can all be easily compared.

“And what does that have to do with vaccinating pregnant women with Dtap?”

I’m pointing out that you’re citing how well DTaP vaccination protects against infection, hospitalization and deaths to try to argue it doesn’t protect against infection, hospitalization adn death to warrant a recomendation that women be vaccinated during pregnancy.

“Are you suggesting that any medication that has been well tested and proven effective on some populations is always good for all populations?”

Just the opposite: I’ve pointed to the studies from Baylor College etc. proving that it’s safe and effective when administered to the specific population you offered as an example (women during pregnancy).

“That is the snakiness and attack mode to anyone who even suggests that a vaccine might not be appropriate for some situations and perhaps we should do some more research or use another method of prevention right now.”

The Baylor, etc., studies demonstrate that vaccination is in fact appropriate with respect to example you’ve offered as an example where it would not be appropriate.

“Just because there is a death from a disease does not mean a vaccine would have prevented that particular death or that it may have harmed or killed other babies or people.”

The Baylor, etc studies indicate that it will significantly reduce disease, hospitalizations and deaths without harming or killing other babies or people. You’ve provided no evidence of increased risk associated with vaccination–you’re argument seems to e “Well, it COULD happen…”

“I can as easily say I am sorry to see you are willing to put 4 million women and another 4 million plus infants at risk ( the us population, our future) with so little evidence to avoid an extremely tiny rare event. ”

The evidence that they would be put at significantly increased risk as the result of DTAP vaccination during pregnancy, such that the risks associated with being vaccinated exceed the risks associated with remaining vulnerable to infection, would be…what, exactly?

You are asking the same questions I have already answered , given links to and quotes from the actual research and CDC themselves. I have already listed the numbers , SOME of the known adverse conditions to the mother, never mind a fetus.

If you want to keep quoted the Baylor study of 33 healthy women with low risk pregnancy’s of whom 66.6 % required a C/S for fetal distress (which is an outrageous number especially for such a small study and was not considered in any way due to the vaccine??) go ahead.

And your question about being “vulnerable to infection” is not answerable nor does it matter if their chances of getting it is so small compared to any risks. We are ALL vulnerable to to many many things so we look at individual risk.

We now have two vaccines added to pregnant women’s schedules, and I have no doubts there will be more. At what point do we decide how much cumulative aluminum, etc we can give to a fetus at what benefit verses risk?

Finally I do not think this vaccine is that good of a “protective ” vaccine at all and neither does the scientific community which is why they are now trying to give more of it more people and ages groups and more frequently until they come up with something they think might be better. Obviously most agree it is not of value for herd immunity and it is very short lived, but it still has value in being protective against symptoms for a short but not well know amount of time which certainly varies person to person.

In fact the reason for giving it in the third trimester is to try to time it close enough so possible maternal antibodies can last long enough in the baby ( a few months ) but not too close to birth as to leave too short a window to produce them.

In summary we have posted linked, hashed through the research, looked at SOME of the KNOWN risks for adults and children ( per CDC and Institute of Medicine ) numbers of deaths and hospitalizations on cycles, etc, etc and for me it is crystal clear that AT THIS TIME for This disease and vaccine, the benefit does not outweight the risk to give during pregnancy for all women and certainly not for every pregnancy regardless of how spaced apart.

I do not have just a hammer, I have an open mind and believe in proper science and personalized medicine so to me everything is not a nail, nor I against all nails.

” studies out of Baylor College of Medicine, Duke University of Medicine and the Group Health Research Institute of Seattle all found that TDaP vaccination during pregnancy was safe………”

For clarity, that is all ONE study ( not separate studies ) in which 33 healthy women with low risk pregnancy’s were vaccinated in the third trimester and results included a 66 % rate of fetal distress requiring C/s. The markers measuring “ safety” are limited and short term and the authors repeat the words “may” and admit that more research needs to be done. At finally the CDC issued their recommendation before this research was even published.

I’m asking the questions repeatedly because the answers are either unsatisfactory or not forthcoming. However you wish to describe the Baylor etc. studies they found that vaccination during pregnancy engenders no risk and significantly prevents infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. You’ve done nothing to demonstrate there’s any significant risk asociated with DtaP vaccinaton during pregnancy. If you beleive myquestions regarding the risks of remaining vulnerable to infection are unanswerable you can make no claims regarding the risk of being vaccinated, either during pregnancy or otherwise, as risks and benefits are assessed in the same manner.

What would be the problem with adding additional vaccines to a pregnant women’s schedules, if the evidence also indicates they will prevent infections, hospitalizations and deaths without engendering increased risk?

I get that you don’t “think this vaccine is that good of a “protective ” vaccine at all” but you haven’t been able to explain what you would consider a good vaccine. (Apparently it would have to result in something more than a 66%a reduction in infant deaths, let alone the significant reductions in infections and hospitalizations not leading to deaths DTaP during pregnancy offers.) I think there’s a name for this: a nirvana fallacy.

“In fact the reason for giving it in the third trimester is to try to [significantly reduce infections, opsitalizations and deaths n newborns as the result of pertussis infection].”

Fixed that for you. No need to thank me.

“e benefit does not outweight the risk to give during pregnancy for all women and certainly not for every pregnancy regardless of how spaced apart.”

But in this very post you’ve asserted the question of the risk of remaining vulnerable to infection “isn’t answerable”, didn’t you? Which s it?

“I do not have just a hammer, I have an open mind and believe in proper science and personalized medicine so to me everything is not a nail, nor I against all nails.”

By what rational argument does the general populace differ sufficiently with respect to immune response that a “personalized approach to routine vaccination is warranted?

A while back Brian Deer said, “I correctly pointed out that none of the Lancet children had inflammatory bowel disease.”

Really? Is Brian Deer a gastroenterologist? Did he examine these children? Below is what some of the coauthors said – including John Waker-Smith, world renowned pediatric gastroenterologist, whose license to practice medicine was restored by an English court which struck down the GMC’s findings and sanctions against him.

These children did have inflammatory bowel disease, and were in need of treatment.

Sir—We welcome the response from Keith Lindley and Peter Milla, as we too had been concerned that the main thrust of the report—the detection of a consistent pattern of mucosal abnormality in children within the autistic spectrum—had been rather lost in the emotionally charged debate about a potential role for MMR vaccine in its pathogenesis. Their points about the absence of hard data supporting the link with MMR were made both within the paper, and forcefully by ourselves at the press conference accompanying publication. We emphatically endorsed current vaccination policy until further data are available. We would refer them to reports in The Guardian and Independent about the sober nature of this conference. We have not seen a single newspaper report inferring causality, as Lindley and Milla suggest. The media response has in fact been notably balanced, with almost all reports endorsing current immunisation schedules, until further evidence is forthcoming.

Should we have published? We believe that it was correct to do so, for two major reasons. First, this mucosal abnormality has been apparent in 47/50 children within the autistic spectrum, whether or not there is any perceived link with immunisation. Thus the lymphoid hyperplasia/ microscopic colitis changes were found in over 90% of the autistic children studied. Even if there is no immunodeficiency, the lymphoid hyperplasia in many cases is remarkable, with germinal centres showing higher numbers of proliferating (Ki67 positive) cells than we have detected in any immunodeficient controls with lymphoid hyperplasia. We are very familiar with the detection of lymphoid hyperplasia in children with minor immunodeficiency, as are Lindley and Milla, and have published several reports on this topic. We were thus ideally placed to detect the exaggerated lesion found in many of these children. The colitis itself is variable, but may feature crypt abscesses, increased macrophage infiltration and unregulated class II major histocompatibility complex expression.

Second, we have noted important behavioural responses in several of the children when their intestinal pathology is treated. Plain radiography confirms severe constipation with acquired megarectum in almost all affected children, despite many receiving treatment for constipation. Most parents note a honeymoon period of behavioural improvement after the bowel preparation for colonoscopy and this is maintained if recurrent constipation can be prevented. Further cognitive improvement has occurred in response to aminosalicylates, provided that constipation is prevented.

Thus, we believe the report to be aimed at those involved in the care of autistic children, as a further indication that the intestine is involved; this is not apparent unless hunted for specifically by investigation, as simple as plain abdominal radiography or as invasive as colonoscopy. We re-emphasise the fact that there is a consistent pattern of gut inflammation in a high proportion of children within the broad autistic spectrum. Understanding the link between the bowel and the brain in autism may allow new insights into this devastating illness. We suggest that the accompanying commentary was not the only saving grace for The Lancet.

Banging on about reduction of relative risk is often used as a way of overselling a medicine. It is meaningless to ask whether a 4 fold, 10-fold reduction of relative risk would be enough to convince of the need to take a drug. It depends on the absolute risk you start with and the cost (in all senses) of the therapy. I could offer you a substantial reduction of the relative risk of being run over by reccommending a tratment of always staying at home in bed. Would you be convinced by the reduction of relative risk alone?

Very well then, Peter: your evidence that the absolute risk associated with vaccinating women against pertussis during pregnancy exceeds the absolute risk associated with remaining vulnerable to pertussis infection would be what, exactly? Be specific.

“You are just trying pull the wool. The GMC were unable to cite any evidence for the 172-96 case and Mitting could find no evidence of it either. It was a concoction of Deer and the GMC. Walker-Smith had generic permission to retain biopsies (162-95) . ”

I’ve been staying away from this discussion because it’s a real waste of time at this point. It’s been explained to Mr. Stone multiple times that he is wrong, and he simply keeps repeating the same things. I applaud jgc56′s patience (and thoroughness and accuracy, but frankly, I have other things to do. But a few points about this last discussion, though:

A. As pointed out by jgc56, Mitting did not conclude the project was not done under 172-96: he in fact lays out evidence supporting the proposition that it was done under the project, and as Mr. Deer points out, his criticism was simply that the GMC did not thoroughly explain why it rejected the evidence. The focus was lack of explanation. Mr. Deer explained it above – an era of cursory explanations was being overturned. A good thing, but it does not say much about the substance.

B. Due process does not mean “ I don’t like the conclusions the court reached”. It means there was a procedural problem. You mentioned conflicts of interests on behalf of one judge – but really, your examples were incredibly weak as conflicts of interests – and nothing stopped Andrew Wakefield from appealing on those grounds. You pointed to no other procedural problems. Andrew Wakefield chose not to appeal. The decision stands.

C. As pointed by jgc56, the Mitting decision also only focused on a few of the allegations against Andrew Wakefield, which are not touched by this.

At the end of the day, I don’t see a point in engaging further. Mr. Stone’s claims were wrong the first three times he made them. He was patiently explained that. He simply repeated them. They are still wrong.

I don’t have much time right now, so I’ll just post this – in a continuing attempt to show the other side of this story: British Court Throws Out Conviction of Autism/Vaccine MD: Andrew Wakefield’s Co-Author Completely Exonerated http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/british-court-throws-out-conviction-of-autismvaccine-md-andrew-wakefields-co-author-completely-exonerated/

After analyzing the various charges against Dr. Wakefield, Mary Holland eloquently summarized the truth about this case:

The Meaning of The Wakefield Prosecution

What, then, was this high-profile prosecution really about? If there was no scientific fraud, no undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, no ethical breaches in performing tests on sick children, and no complaints from patients or their families, then what was the big deal? Did the international scandal and multi-million dollar prosecution proceed merely to chastise a doctor for drawing blood from children at a birthday party, with their consent and their parents’ consent? Of course not.

Dr. Wakefield was, and remains, a dissident from medical orthodoxy. The medical establishment subjected him to a modern-day medical show trial for his dissent.30 Dr. Wakefield’s research raised fundamental doubts about the safety of vaccines and the eti- ology of autism. Dr. Wakefield was punished for his temerity to caution the public about vaccine risks and to urge them to use their own judgment. Dr. Wakefield was punished for upholding vaccination choice.

The purpose of the proceeding, as in any show trial, was to communicate to other doctors and scientists, and to the public, the error of the perpetrator’s ways. A show trial offers a veneer of due process but, at its core, displays naked power. The apparent intent of the prosecution was to intimidate others from following Dr. Wakefield’s footsteps and to teach the lesson that anyone in the medical or scientific community who dares to publicly question the safety and efficacy of vaccines will be punished with utmost severity. The GMC appears to have decided that if the price of such a lesson was scientific ￼￼￼￼￼￼ ￼￼￼￼ignorance about vaccine-autism links and the suffering of severely ill children, then so be it. Dr. Wakefield was made an example.

The GMC destroyed Dr. Wakefield’s professional reputation and livelihood, and The Lancet and other publications confiscated his professional accomplishment through retraction. The GMC colluded with The Lancet, the media, the British Department of Health, the pharmaceutical industry, and even with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Justice, to discredit Dr. Wakefield.

The Center for Personal Rights is confident that the world will look back at the prosecution of Drs. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch with shame and remorse.

Dr. Wakefield has joined in a long, honorable tradition of dissidents in science and human rights. […Galileo, Semmelweis, Needleman and McBride...] As Thomas Kuhn explained, changing scientific paradigms is a revolutionary process, with the wrenching upheaval that revolution brings… Before long, the world will likely recognize that it was Dr. Wakefield, not his detractors, who stood up for the practice of medicine and the pursuit of science. Dr. Wakefield remains an unbowed dissident in the face of a repressive medical and scientific establishment. http://vaccineepidemic.com/images/vech25.pdf

How ironic, and utterly backwards, that writers such as Emily Willingham and Peter Lipson blame Dr. Wakefield for the chilling effects of his unjust persecution.

This paper is a detailed history of the events at the Royal Free hospital leading up to the 1998 Lancet paper, including a discussion of which approvals had been obtained for research: On Second Looking into the Case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield By William R. long , mDiv, PhD, JD http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US31_Wakefield.pdf

The judge found that the children were investigated for the purpose of treatment, that the Project 172-6 research was not carried out, that there was approval for extra tissue samples to be taken for the sake of research, in the course of the clinically indicated colonoscopies. This overturns some of the primary charges that Wakefield was convicted of by the GMC.

The judge did not rule on whether it was ethical for Dr. Wakefield to have blood samples taken from children at his son’s birthday party, I’ll grant you that. These samples were taken without mishap, according to proper medical procedures, with the children’s parents present, and both children and parents voluntarily agreeing – and most of the children’s parents were doctors. But yes, Judge Mitting did not overturn every single charge of Dr. Wakefield’s.

But take child 2, for example. The GMC said that research was undertaken without authorization and that Dr. Wakefield acted contrary to the clinical interests of this child. However Judge Mitting found that:

“Neither [sentence from the GMC ruling], however, dealt with or expressly rejected the evidence of Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch that an unwritten clinical protocol was developed for clinical purposes. This evidence was central to their case. It deserved a clear answer, which it did not receive. If the panel was relying on the evidence of Professor Booth, it should have said so. If it had done, it would have had also to explain why it rejected the evidence of Dr. Miller and considered that his view lay outside the spectrum of reasonable medical opinion. It would also have had to have dealt with the awkward facts (from the point of view of the GMC’s case) that the neurological investigations, as well as following the project protocol, also followed the recommendations of Dr. Surtees, which were undoubtedly made for clinical diagnostic purposes and Dr. Thomson’s Birmingham protocol. The single instance specifically identified by the panel – that at least four paired biopsies were taken at colonoscopy – does not bear the weight apparently placed upon it. The histology report records that six pots were received in the laboratory, containing ten pieces of beige tissue. No reliance was placed by the GMC on this fact in their closing submissions or, as far as I know, in the evidence of Professor Booth or in cross-examination of the clinicians. Professor Walker-Smith told the Ethics Committee in his letter of 24th August 1995 that 4 – 6 biopsies were routinely taken for diagnostic purposes. He sought, and was given, permission for an extra two for research purposes.

“The finding that Professor Walker-Smith had caused child 2 to undergo a colonoscopy and barium meal and follow through which was not clinically indicated was founded on a single sentence of reasoning: the [GMC] panel accepted his evidence that child 2′s condition was improving. That finding was an inadequate and distorted summary of Professor Walker-Smith’s evidence; and it was factually unsound. There was evidence of improvement in child 2′s condition, as Dr. Beattie and Dr. Hunter reported. Professor Walker-Smith noted in his clinical notes of 21st June 1996 that on examination he was ‘much calmer than seen last time’, but also, that since then he had had diarrhoea, weight loss and had been very ill; but, his evidence was that even if Dr. Hunter was providing symptomatic relief, he was not advancing the diagnosis. Further, Professor Walker-Smith’s limited admission – justified by the facts – had to be set in its proper context. That included the fact that the medical notes contained references to recent significant episodes of illness, diarrhoea and weight loss in January and April 1996 and its acceptance that Professor Walker-Smith had written to child 2′s mother on 16th May 1996 ‘in response to her telephone call saying that her child’s symptoms had worsened’. In those circumstances, the panel was wrong to place decisive reliance on Professor Walker-Smith’s limited admission… it could not sustainably have reached the conclusion that colonoscopy and barium meal and follow through were not clinically indicated.

“The panel’s conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith’s conduct was contrary to the clinical interests of child 2 depends upon the conclusions analysed above. Because they are inadequate or wrong, this conclusion falls with them.

“I have dwelt at length upon the case of child 2, because it was the case upon which both sides placed greatest reliance. I will be able to deal more shortly with the cases of the other Lancet children; but my analysis of their cases is informed by the conclusions which I have reached about the case of child 2.” http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

These children were very sick. Responsible, competent doctors performed appropriate medical procedures to better understand their specific conditions and provide effective treatment, for the sake of benefiting them.

“The judge found that the children were investigated for the purpose of treatment,”

No Twyla, he didn’t. Justice Mitting found that the GMC had failed to sufficiently explain how they arrived at a determination that john Walker Smith’s intent was to conduct research rather than to treat patients. He actually states in the opinion that Wakefield’s intent was clearly to conduct reseearch rather than treat.

“The judge did not rule on whether it was ethical for Dr. Wakefield to have blood samples taken from children at his son’s birthday party, I’ll grant you that.”

The judge did not rule on any of Wakefield’s actions at all.

Please take careful note that in the excerpts you provide from his opinion Mitting addresses only charges against John Walker-Smith, not any of the chrages against Wakefield.

I get that you and John want Mittings ruling against Walker-Smith to somehow apply to Wakefield by association. That simply is not the case, and this has been explained to the both of you pretty much to the extent it’s humanly possible to do so. Walker Smith appealed, and Justice Mitting ruled in his favor, voiding the GMC ruling. Wakefield elected NOT to appeal, and the GMC ruling against him stands.

Yes, Dr. Wakefield was engaged in research. But the colonoscopies were done based on clinical need. Tissue samples taken during these medically necessary colonoscopies were used for research purposes. This was consistent with valid approvals which Walker Smith had. The court decision ruled on the medical treatment and found that it was intended to address the serious medical conditions of the children. Dr. Wakefield was part of a team of doctors. Walker Smith, Murch, and others supervised the medical treatment. Dr. Wakefield was not a lone rogue conducting colonoscopies purely for research purposes.

Another example of the judge’s ruling directly contradicting the GMC’s ruling against Wakefield:

The GMC ruling on Dr. Wakefield said, “the Panel found that Dr Wakefield caused three of these young and vulnerable children, (nos. 3, 9 and 12) to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and was not clinically indicated.”

Judge Mitting’s ruling on Walker-Smith said: Regarding child #9 see 81 thru 92. Two excerpts: “87. In the case of child 9, Professor Walker-Smith decided that he should have a lumbar puncture at his outpatient clinic. He did so because he suspected that he might have an organic basis for his neurological problems and that the analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid obtained at the lumbar puncture performed at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, to determine B12 absorption, did not deal with that. Dr. Rutter said that a lumbar puncture was not clinically indicated. Dr. Thomas said that it was, to exclude a metabolic disorder.” and 90. “…Dr. Thomas’s opinion, expressed in evidence was firmly that a repeat lumbar puncture was justified.” Regarding child #3: 71. “Professor Rutter expressed the opinion that the lumbar puncture carried out on child 3 was not clinically indicated. Dr. Thomas said that it was. In his opinion, there were strong similarities between child 3 and child 2 (in whose case it was accepted that a lumbar puncture was clinically indicated as explained above).” 73. “As Miss Glynn concedes, the reasons for the panel’s findings that colonoscopy, barium meal and follow through and lumbar puncture were not clinically indicated are wrong.”

Reading through the Judge Miiting’s decision, one can see that: 1) These children had serious GI issues, e.g. regarding Child 3: “Rectal bleeding and anaemia, of sufficient severity to require his general practitioner to give iron, was untypical of constipation” The child’s referring GP wrote, “Thank you for asking to see this young boy who developed behavioural problems of autistic nature, severe constipation and learning difficulties after MMR vaccination….His severe constipation is requiring frequent enemas and oral medication. The parents are very convinced that the difficulties in his behaviour etc. started only after vaccination. I am extremely grateful for you to have taken on (child 3) for case study.” When seen at the Royal Free at the age of 6, he was “not toilet trained”. 2) The medical decisions were made by several doctors, carefully considering medical need – not simply as part of a research protocol. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

The GMC found that Dr. Wakefield did research on children without the proper approvals, and that he acted contrary to the children’s clinical interests. But Judge Mitting found that:

145. “The panel repeatedly laid emphasis upon the circumstances in which each child was admitted for the investigations and the terms of the contemporaneous letters, in particular those from Professor Walker-Smith, leading to admission. This was a legitimate approach and led the panel to discern a pattern in the admissions: that each child was admitted to undertake a standardised programme of investigations, which were, with some exceptions, carried out. What the panel’s stated reasons do not do, however, is to justify its conclusion that the investigations were for the purposes of Project 172-96 and not for the purpose of a developing clinical project. The panel had to decide whether, as the GMC contended, the admissions were to fulfil a research programme and began when the protocol for that programme was settled; or that Dr. Wakefield began his research when the clinical team had reached sufficient agreement on a clinical protocol for children with gastrointestinal and behavioural disorders to permit them to proceed…

146. “Both sides rightly focussed on the early admissions – children 1, 2, and 3. Careful analysis of their history does not support the panel’s finding. Child 1, the first to be admitted, was only admitted after Professor Walker-Smith had changed his provisional diagnosis as a result of an abnormal blood test result. Child 2 was only subjected to neurological tests after Dr. Thomson had checked with Dr. Surtees, at Great Ormond Street, that the tests were appropriate – and what they were intended to reveal or exclude, which included metabolic disorder. (Project 172-96 only proposed testing for measles virus)…

148. “The detailed findings of the panel in the cases of the individual children did not fill the obvious gaps in its general conclusions. In no case did it address the indications in the medical notes which supported the oral evidence of the clinicians that they were undertaking a programme of diagnostic and therapeutic investigations, not research; or give adequate reasons for rejecting that account in the case of each individual child.”

150. “It is in its findings on the clinical issues in the individual cases of the Lancet children that the most numerous and significant inadequacies and errors in the determination of the panel occur. In no individual case in which the panel made a finding adverse to Professor Walker-Smith did it address the expert evidence led for him, except to misstate it. The issues to which this evidence went were of fundamental importance to the case against him. Universal inadequacies and some errors in the panel’s determination accordingly go to the heart of the case. They are not curable.”

The GMC found that the Lancet paper had stated that the children had been consecutively referred, but that some of the children were not routine referrals, and thus that “the description of the referral process was irresponsible, misleading and in breach of Dr Wakefield’s duty as a senior author.”

But Judge Mitting found that:

157. “On the premise that the panel was right to find that the Lancet paper was addressed to the general reader and that it was the interpretation of the general reader which mattered, I am as well qualified as the panel to construe its meaning. Further, I am entitled to and do, apply the familiar canon of construction used by judges in construing documents: to read and construe the whole document, not just selected words. Thus construed, this paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the panel. The phrase ‘consecutively referred’ means no more than that the children were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology. The words did not imply routine referral. The paragraph from which the words ‘a self-referred group’ was taken reads:

“‘We describe a pattern of colitis and ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia in children with developmental disorders. Intestinal and behavioural pathologies may have occurred together by chance, reflecting a selection bias in a self-referred group; however the uniformity of the intestinal pathological changes and the fact that previous studies have found intestinal dysfunction in children with autistic-spectrum disorders, suggests that the connection is real and reflects a unique disease process.’

“The general reader of that paragraph would note the author’s caution about the possibility of selection bias in the self-referred group. Taken together with the comments already cited made about the temporal coincidence of the onset of symptoms and MMR vaccination in the case of eight children, the author has made it clear that this was not a routine referral. It was a referral generated by the concerns of parents about a possible link. The statement made by the panel in paragraph 32c that it was Professor Walker-Smith who had described the referral process in the Lancet paper as ‘routine’ was wrong. It put its stretched meaning of the wording of part of the paper into his mouth and then found that it was irresponsible and misleading. This was not a legitimate finding.

158. “The findings in paragraphs 32a that the referrals of four children were not routine because the referring doctors did not mention intestinal symptoms in their referral letters was factually accurate as to the contents of the referral letters, but of no significance. In each case, Professor Walker-Smith elicited gastrointestinal symptoms at his outpatients clinic. The finding at paragraph 32a that all four children ‘lacked a history of gastrointestinal symptoms’ is wrong unless the panel intended only to refer to the contents of the referral letters. The finding in paragraph 32b(ii) was correct, but, on its own, of little significance. (The genesis of the referral is explained in paragraphs 81 and 82 of this judgment). The panel’s finding that the description of the patient population in the Lancet paper was misleading would only have been justified if its primary finding that all of the Lancet children were referred for the purposes of research as part of Project 172-96 is sustainable. Because, for the reasons which I have given, it was not, this aspect of its findings must also fall.”

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

Obviously, Judge Mitting’s decision is not legally binding on Dr. Wakefield and does not restore his medical license. And, people can argue about who is right, the GMC or Judge Mitting? (Hint: Judge Mitting is right, and the GMC wrong.) But it makes no sense to say that Judge Mitting’s ruling is irrelevant to Dr. Wakefield. It is very relevant. It totally contradicts most of what Dr. Wakefield was convicted of.

These are the children who were referred. Dr. Wakefield was not herding some other flock of children into the Royal Free Hospital. Dr. Mitting found that they were consecutively referred. He also points out that the paper says there could be “selection bias”. The Lancet paper never made any claims about what percentage of people with autism have IBD. Obviously those whose parents seek treatment for them from gastroenterologists are more likely to have GI issues. The Lancet simply described this group of children and called for further research.

Thanks to Twyla anyone can read above for themselves why the GMC’s faulty reasoning in the case of Prof Walker-Smith (or rather an absence of any reasoning at all) is relevant to Wakefield’s case. The problem as even Dorit Reiss identified is the absence of any explanation of their findings on 172-96 which referred collectively to the defence of all three. In their findings the panel were unable to provide any explanation, evidence or reasoning for this finding, and the GMC’s counsel was unable to make good the deficit before Mitting. This is no small omission after eight years, a budget of £6m or more and with all the resources of the GMC behind the prosecution, including the three Queen’s Counsels – the lady who prosecuted the case for three years (Sally Smith), the gentleman who advised the panel (Nigel Seed), and the lady who attempted to defend the findings to the judge (Joanna Glynn). This is not some slight oversight. There is every reason to believe that whole process was defective, and only someone with a twisted interest in injustice would be trying to make out that there is not something drastically wrong.

John, Wakefield no longer has a case, as he elected not to appeal the GMC verdict. Their ruling stands, and nothing in Mitting’s opinion re: Walker-Smith ruling changes that fact no matter how desparately you want it to.

He has a case but he was effectively prevented from putting it. To repeat: there is every reason to believe that whole process was defective, and only someone with a twisted interest in injustice would be trying to make out that there is not something drastically wrong.

A. Explanation: Mr. Deer addressed the lack of explanation: it was the custom at the time to provide cursory explanations. There is nothing in Judge Mitting’s decision that suggests that there was no explanation available – simply that it was not detailed in the decision. In the U.S., administrative decisions are overturned for lack of explanation – and remanded to the agency to provide one. That does not necessarily mean there is none – and again, here, Mitting did mention facts going either way, and however much you would like to argue otherwise, he did not counter or dismiss the facts supporting the GMC’s ruling – just pointed out that they needed to explain better than decision. Lack of explanation is a flaw in a decision, but it does not mean the decision is wrong. And note, that this decision only found lack of explanation on one issue: the intent of Walker-Smith. Not Andrew Wakefield’s intent. Not any of the other charges against Andrew Wakefield. On this issue, and this issue alone.

On the other issues – for example, lack of ethical approval – Walker-Smith was exonerated because Judge Mitting found that Andrew Wakefield misled him.

B. If you have credible evidence that Andrew Wakefield was prevented from appealing – and that means more than the opinion of an Age of Autism blogger, please – please explain how he was prevented from appealing, and refer us to the evidence.

Otherwise, I don’t see any reason to see his decision not to appeal as anything but the natural, simple meaning: acknowledging – as he did when he withdrew his libel suit in the U.K. against Mr. Deer and BMJ – that he has no case.

So now Brian Deer is the expert on British legal procedure. The “non-lawyer” law professor Dorit Reiss speaks!!! And there is plenty in Mitting’s decision which suggests that there was no explanation available – and bear in mind this was after two and half year of hearing. If it was clear in a short case what the evidence was then the lack of reasons might have been a slight omission, but actually there was no evidence either in this case let alone explanation. The “facts” cited by Mitting in para 19 in favour of the 172-96 hypothesis fall well short of evidence, they are simply circumstantial details. Moreover, Mitting plainly misconstrues what is said in the paper’s statement about ethical approval (it merely says that the investigations had ethical approval, not the paper) and this is exactly what Mitting argues elsewhere in Walker-Smith defence:

“Ethical approval and consent: Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent.”

But as it is we have no reasons and no evidence, the GMC’s panel could not present any, and GMC’s counsel at the Walker-Smith hearing couldn’t repair the damage when challenged my Mitting. Indeed, having failed to find any she requested – and I was there – that Mitting himself study the papers and see whether he could find any. I can tell you he was not very pleased but agreed to do so. So, in fact, Mitting effectively ruled out there being explanation having agreed to take the duty of finding one on himself.

And here we are ten years with no evidence and no explanation, and heaps of innuendo. This is just the sort of situation that we would expect Prof Reiss the “non-lawyer” professor of law to relish and defend.

A. Lack of explanation: Judge Mitting did not say there was no explanation available, again, he cited facts that support the finding – whether you like them or not. He did not dismiss them. All he asked was that the GMC explain, given that there was a set of factors supporting the GMC’s decision and a set of factors going the other way, why the GMC preferred A over B. No more, no less. You may not like the factors supporting the GMC’s decision, but Judge Mitting did not dismiss them. The decision did not say that the GMC was unable to provide any explanation because there was none. It could have. Whatever your impression of the proceeding, it is not a substitute to what the decision actually said.

B. In relation to ethics committee approval, your quote is incomplete – in a way that makes it extremely misleading. This is what Judge Mitting actually said, in paragraph 153: “Professor Walker-Smith gave unchallenged evidence that this was the last draft of the paper which he saw. Dr. Murch said, again in unchallenged evidence, that there was then a meeting attended by all of the researchers and clinicians involved to discuss the draft, which they approved. At the end of the meeting there was a discussion between Dr. Murch, Professor Walker-Smith, Dr. Thomson and Dr. Wakefield about the reference to Ethics Committee approval of “this clinical investigation”, because it was a clinically driven investigation which did not require Ethics Committee approval. Dr. Murch said that Dr. Wakefield had assured them that he would liaise with the Lancet to ensure that appropriate wording was substituted. The wording in the published paper which neither Dr. Murch nor Professor Walker-Smith saw before publication was, “Ethical approval and consent Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent.” This statement was untrue and should not have been included in the paper.”

In other words, Andrew Wakefield lied to his co-authors. He misled Walker-Smith.

C. I am sorry you find the fact that I am not a practicing lawyer so distressing. It’s certainly not in any way a problem in my job as a legal academic in the U.S..

This is very peculiarly unimpressive. The standard of guilt was supposed to be “beyond reasonable doubt” so the absence of any cited evidence or explanation is both serious and anomalous. You would expect in a case of such length and importance for the explanation to be rigorous. I am certainly puzzled by Mitting’s interpretation of the statement about ethical approval and consent. At the very least there is an ambiguity and it is not all clear what signicance it could have or what motive there could be for misreporting. But misreporting it is not (and certainly not beyond reasonable doubt). If the statement had just read “Ethical approvals and consent” it would have excluded the possibility that “Ethical approval” pertained to the paper, and this seems to be simply an error by the judge.

I am bemused by you current modification of status. Apparently, now you are a “non-practicing lawyer” whereas previously you stated you were not a lawyer at all: “I wrote an academic paper on it; as a non-lawyer, I am not going to – or able – to bring a lawsuit…Mr. Stone, I never presented myself as a lawyer. I’m an academic”.

Can you tell me whether if you were a bar registered attorney (I apologise if I don’t have the jargon bang on for the US) whether there would be professional and ethical constraints on your activities which do not pertain at the moment?

jgcm are you pretending to be stupid? For example, the decision of the GMC Panel stated that Dr Wakefield caused “young and vulnerable” child 9 “to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and was not clinically indicated.” But Judge Mitting found that, “In the case of child 9, Professor Walker-Smith decided that he should have a lumbar puncture at his outpatient clinic. He did so because he suspected that he might have an organic basis for his neurological problems,” and that Dr. Thomas said a lumbar puncture was clinically indicated “to exclude a metabolic disorder” and that “Dr. Thomas’s opinion, expressed in evidence was firmly that a repeat lumbar puncture was justified.” And finally, “As Miss Glynn concedes, the reasons for the panel’s findings that colonoscopy, barium meal and follow through and lumbar puncture were not clinically indicated are wrong.” That is a direct contradiction. Justice Mitting’s ruling did not “address” the GMC’s ruling on Wakefield, but it directly contradicted most of that ruling.

The judge’s thorough review of the evidence caused him to conclude that “For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.” He trashed the GMC’s ruling. And most of this relates directly to the charges against Dr. Wakefield.

My last comment was in response to a comment on the prior page which said, “Twyla, you keep posting as if Justice Mitting’s ruling with resepct to John Walker-Smith’s appeal addressed the GMC’s ruling against Andrew Wakefield–why?”

Thank you John for continuing to have the patience to argue with these folks. Dorit, it’s not up to us to prove what caused Dr. Wakefield not to appeal his case. His reasons do not change the fact that his conviction was wrong. That is what we are talking about.

A. The standard of proof the GMC used is one thing; the reason Judge Mitting overturned it is another. The GMC panel could easily have found the standard of proof was met, have had enough evidence for that conclusion, and done a lousy job of explaining that conclusion. These are two different things.

B. Again, to remind you, the decision did not address – nor find – inadequate explanation for most of the claims against Andrew Wakefield. The allegations against Walker-Smith were much more limited – and for at least one, Judge Mitting expressly distinguished the cases, more or less confirming the finding against Andrew Wakefield, and not in any way suggesting it was inadequate explained. You may be puzzled by Judge Mitting’s explanation, I am not: he concluded this was misinformation. He concluded Andrew Wakefield misled his coauthors and published a false statement that there was ethical approval.

C. I am sorry this causes you so much confusion, and I admit that your interest in my professional qualifications is somewhat off-topic and unrelated. But then, I don’t have anything to hide. No, I have never taken a bar exam, and hence never been admitted as a lawyer – though I am a bar member of the ABA, the American Bar Association. To the best of my knowledge, the only difference being a practical lawyer would make is that as a non-practicing lawyer, I shouldn’t be advising Californian on specific cases for money. Of course, being admitted to practice in CA would not mean you can give legal advice elsewhere. I’m not sure why you think lawyers – or non-lawyers – are limited in their free speech online (of course, lawyers could be subject to client confidentiality for commenting online – but you know what? Even lawyers wouldn’t be subject to client confidentiality when they don’t have a client. In spite of your attempts to believe otherwise, I don’t represent anyone but myself when I comment about vaccines online).

“Dorit, it’s not up to us to prove what caused Dr. Wakefield not to appeal his case. His reasons do not change the fact that his conviction was wrong. That is what we are talking about.” With all due respect to Ms. Holland’s opinion, I disagree that his conviction was wrong. The documentation of Andrew Wakefield: A. Hiding conflicts of interests. B. Misrepresenting the lack of ethics committee approval. C. Engaged in financial irregularities. D. Performed invasive tests of children for research purposes.

Is extensive. You certainly do not have to show why Andrew Wakefield chose not to appeal, but the meaning of that choice is clear: it means the GMC decision stands unchallenged. In a sense, Andrew Wakefield, by not even trying to appeal, accepted it.

And this is even putting aside other problems in his conduct not addressed by GMC – making unsubstantiated statements, not supported by his own research, that caused people not to protect their children against diseases in the press; research fraud; the many inaccuracies in Callous Disregard, as documented by Dr. Joel Harrison.

Prof Reiss, I am sure you will favour any conclusion that supports the interests of the vaccine industry. Wakefield is of course in the position of a great many other people these days who cannot afford justice, and it would be unwise to draw too many conclusions from the fact that he has not contested the findings.

About the alleged conflicts it should be pointed out that in 1998 undertaking work for a British court was not considered to represent “a conflict”.

Writing to Private Eye (19 March 2004), Professor Elizabeth Miller who was working for the other side – presumably with the best legal advice – wrote:

“there can be no conflict of interest when acting as an expert for the courts, because the duty to the courts overrides any other obligation, including to the person from whom the expert receives the innstruction or by whom they are paid”.

This legal view was also given by barrister Robert Hantusch in a letter to the Times of 24 February 2004:

“But the courts do not consider that the engagement of someone to act as an expert witness in litigation has the effect that that person is then biased. Indeed, if this were the legal position, no paid professional could ever at any time give evidence to a court”

So it seems there was one law for Wakefield and another law for everyone else.

As it transpired at the hearing the Lancet had known about Wakefield’s involvement with the case since early 1997 and did not require specific disclosure in letters as late as 1999 and 2000 despite the fact that he plainly acknowledged his involvement in a letter published in the journal on 2 May 1998, a matter which the Lancet went to great lengths subsequently to distort (and it turned out the Lancet itself was hugely conflicted in undisclosed ways):

Also, of course, the allegations of financial irregularity followed from the finding on 172-96 for which Mitting could find no explanation.

Regarding the patent, which was developed for therapeutic reasons, the GMC ignored evidence that Wakefield had made known his intent to hand over the earnings to the medical school.

“As the GMC lawyers wrote in an attendance note with Mr. Chengiz Tarhan, the Finance Director of the Medical School, “However, CT (Chengiz Tarhan) pointed to a letter from him to Dr. Wakefield dated June 26, 1998 where CT confirmed Dr Wakefield’s wishes that all the inventor profit from the Transfer Factor patent was to go to a charity and that the inventors would make no money for themselves whatsoever.” This is in Wakefield’s affadavit, and is therefore a public document.”

Additionally, Wakefield had suggested the use of single vaccines in which he certainly had no financial interest.

Blood test are not normally considered invasive (are not more invasive than vaccination) and do not require ethical approval. Once again one law for Wakefield, another for everyone else.

Regarding Joel Harrison PhD his central issue is that Wakefield gave a misleading narrative over the introduction and ultimate removal of the SKB vaccine (Trivirix/Pluserix) in the UK and he is completely wrong. Wakefield’s history, as you know, was correct since we visited this before. The product was withdrawn by the manufacturers by agreement with the authorities in Canada before it was introduced (with indemnities to the manufacturer) in the UK in Autumn 1988. Subsequent to findings in a British government laboratory in 1989 the license was withdrawn in Canada but the product continued to be given to British infants until SKB (now GSK) withdrew it on advice from their lawyers in September 1992. So, for four years British children were given a known to be defective vaccine at the behest of their government. One place this history is confirmed is in a Canadian government document that Harrison relegated to his footnote 60.

The record is clear that Dr. Wakefield did not hide conflicts of interests, did not misrepresent the lack of ethics committee approval, did not engage in financial irregularities, and did not perform invasive tests on children for research purposes.

MMR judge’s family link to triple-vaccine company http://www.foiacentre.com/news-MMR-judge-070509.html

“Parents of children allegedly damaged by MMR are demanding an investigation into an extraordinary family connection of the judge who blocked their legal aid. The FOIA Centre can reveal that the high court judge who made the devastating ruling on legal aid in the group claim for damages has a brother who sits on the board of a drugs company embroiled in the litigation.

…But parents are angry after discovering, three years after the crucial judgement on legal aid, about an extraordinary family connection of the judge, Sir Nigel Davis, 56, who sits in the Queen’s bench division and can also hear cases, such as judicial reviews, in the administrative court of the high court. His brother, Sir Crispin Davis, 58, is non-execut-ive director of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). The MMR pharmaceutical defendants in the group litigation include SmithKline Beecham and Smith Kline & French Laboratories, which became part of the GSK group in 2000. And Davis, who is also chief executive officer of Reed Elsevier, publisher of The Lancet, took up his GSK post just seven months before his younger brother delivered that critical judgement. The judicial communications office said in a statement: “In 2003, Mr Justice Davis’s brother was appointed as a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, a company which was formed as a result of a merger with SmithKline Beecham. At the date of the hearing before Justice Davis, the possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother’s position did not occur to him. [HILARIOUS!]

The disclosure of the brother’s link comes after minutes of meetings disclosed under the freedom of information act revealed that government health officials were alerted to serious health problems linked to a particular type of MMR before it was used in Britain for four years.”

let’s pillory Wakefield!!! vaccines are perfectly safe… government officials are beyond reproach and their big pharam criminal benefactors are looking out for the children… if you disagree you are a baby killer!

Revealed: how Whitehall dismissed MMR alarms

Members of a government MMR working party met in south London just before the triple-vaccination was introduced in the UK and received some worrying news. http://www.foiacentre.com/news-MMR-070305_2.html

… we are able to reveal what happened at that crucial meeting on 11 February 1988 – and the minutes of other meetings of Whitehall committees dealing with the triple-vaccine – thanks to the freedom of information act (FOIA).

And these minutes provide a unique insight into how officials came to introduce a nationwide MMR programme in the UK despite receiving a series of alerts from overseas authorities that raised questions about the safety of the triple-vaccine.

For all the controversy about whether MMR causes autism, the minutes reveal that there was real concern that the triple-vaccine would trigger several other devastating conditions among some children. The concern was not about autism, but encephalitis-type conditions, including meningitis, with symptoms such as swelling of the brain, swelling of the lining of the brain or spinal chord, or swelling of the brain and the lining of either the brain or spinal chord.

…“Members read a report of cases of mumps encephalitis which had been associated with MMR vaccine containing the Urabe strain of the mumps virus. The Canadian authorities had suspended the licences of MMR vaccines containing the Urabe strain,” record the minutes.

In light of this, could officials go ahead with using the Urabe MMR in Britain? [But of course!]

…There was confusion in Whitehall over the action taken by the Canadian authorities. They had not in fact, at that stage, withdrawn the licences for Urabe MMR; but, as a precaution, they had decided to stop using it.

And this was not the first time that the alarm had been raised within Whitehall about MMR. An early sign of trouble came back in May 1987 following “adverse reactions” in America. This was a month after ministers had decided that a UK MMR programme should be an “option”.

Although Whitehall minutes are infamous for presenting as anodyne an accounts of events as possible, the sense of unease remains clear in the records of the meeting on 1 May 1987 of the “Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation” (JCVI), which advised ministers to introduce MMR.

The minutes record: “The meeting questioned the dedication and commitment of appointed officers and [identity withheld] expressed his reservations concerning reported adverse reactions to MMR in the USA.”

Sweden’s Central Microbiological Laboratory said in a letter to British counterparts four months later that it had 52 cases of “febrile convulsions probably associated with MMR vaccination”, including several with encephalitis symptoms. These were out of 360,000 doses, and Sweden continued to vaccinate even children with a previous history of convulsion.

… “This gave a rate of three convulsions per thousand doses of MMR,” the minutes say. The working party “expressed concern” about giving the triple-vaccine to children with personal or family history of convulsions.

We have established that the data from Canada related specifically to Urabe MMR, while the figures from America and Sweden concerned the form of MMR that replaced it in the UK in 1992.

This was the background in which the MMR working party received news in February 1988 about cases of mumps encephalitis linked with the triple-vaccine in Canada and how these had led the authorities there to stop using Urabe MMR.

Despite this, the UK began injecting hundreds of thousands of children with Urabe MMR from October 1988.

funny how the pharma shills and flak producers on these blogs have plenty of time on their hands to discuss every nuance of show trials against “official enemies” but never ever ever ever discuss the documented intimidation and fraudulent publishing/misinformation tactics used by big pharma on a daily basis… the world’s most profitable and criminal companies that profit only when people are sick and yet are allowed to inject the world’s children with disease agents under the pretext of making them healthy (hilarious!), and not lifelong customers …

Merck made a “hit list” of doctors who criticized Vioxx, according to testimony in a Vioxx class action case in Australia. The list, emailed between Merck employees, contained doctors’ names with the labels “neutralise,” “neutralised” or “discredit” next to them.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer gave this assessment: It gives you the dark side of the use of key opinion leaders and thought leaders … if (they) say things you don’t like to hear, you have to neutralise them … It does suggest a certain culture within the organisation about how to deal with your opponents and those who disagree with you.

The Australian: The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.

“Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation,” he wrote, …

“This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators … I suppose I was mildly threatened myself but I never have spoken or written on these issues.”